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
“One lawyer with a briefcase can steal more than a hundred men with guns ...” -Mario Puzo, The Godfather novel. Mr. White can be used and related to this quote. Particularly in Casino Royale.
Less is more ...
Whether Mr. White ... or the Blofeld of FRWL/TB ... or the silent, menacing authority of Michael and his lieutenants (the men in shadows) at the end of The Godfather and throughout Pt. 2.
A Blofeld crawling at Bond's feet in SPECTRE or a Safin being casually executed by Bond doesn't sit right with me.
Yes, up until he had those black eyes in SP. He was more like the sort of character you'd have seen in one of the older Bond films, though, and that can only be a good thing.
Actually, I can say LeChiffre is one of the most iconic characters in the series, regardless of his actual screen time. Even though he is not one of those larger than life villains, he is interesting to watch, whereas Brofeld and Safin are not. Among the reasons I like CR is because LeChiffre is a great villain. Not the other way round. As for White, I don't think about him much.
Paid to be acting, seen to be acting. A theatrical rush with makeup and prosthetics, long in the history of cinematic villainy.
Bardem has his moments for sure; Mads is very believable in the torture scene; and Malek is great in the PTS.
I get it ... and it sells tickets. But none of it is especially creepy or scary for me. Mostly good campy fun. They often seem too self consciously aware of the performances they are giving and so teeter on the edge of parody. Giving the producers what they paid for. Fair exchange.
Maybe for me the most genuinely scary villain in the series is Robert Shaw. Him I believe. I think Connery did too, you can see him sweat. Such is the performance when he's on his knees. Maybe it had something to do with the class hatred Shaw convincingly conveys in his confrontation with Bond. And something Shaw may have understood instinctively about himself, I don't know.
And for the genuinely creepy I've always loved that moment in TB when Largo looks at his henchman and says ... "And what do you do Vargas?" To which Vargas looks away, as if being implicated in the most unspeakably depraved thing possible. And that requires us as viewers to imagine the extent of it. I'm sure Vargas was the model for Locque in FYEO.
Maybe even with a vile henchman too boot?
It feels like it's been a while since we've had that type of villain / henchman combo.
TND?
Or would that put Bond into the almost parody Austin Powers area, where over the top camp might be a giant step backwards for the general audience?
i think TLD & GE route would be ideal, because they both have flashes of outlandish moments, yet showcase grittiness.
Indeed, many of us have been clamouring for this. Besides, it amplifies the possibilities of creating new iconography for the series. A new, brilliant, iconic villain.
I really, really, really hope this is what we get, and if they're not going to, then I hope some semblance of continuity manages to be weaved throughout the era and we don't get more retcons.
Not to sound dramatic but based on past comments and interest, I bet he'd give up one or two for Bond (or cause it to be delayed a year or so). But I also recently heard he was interested in directing the third Sicario again as well.
The Sicario rumour was debunked — I think just yesterday (world of reel started this, but thankfully they followed through, and reported that the rumours are false).
Agree on not being connected to Bond but I don’t see why the baddy can’t be connected to any of the supporting cast. That’s how he meets most Bond girls isn’t it, on the job.
The eyeball scene could have been a good teaser for the Blofeld character if SP and NTTD were somehow reversed, kind of an updated TB scene.
I think there could be at least a bit of continuity. You can also have Bond films that work as standalone adventures with subplots that show the world doesn't completely change between two films. Recurring characters should – if possible – be played by the same actor. I also have nothing against the fact that an evil organization like SPECTER in the old films appears in the film every now and then.
For what it’s worth too, every Bond film is a standalone adventure, even the Craig era ones. They all have their own particular plots, stories, locations, and even visuals/tone. It’s very different to, say, the last two Mission Impossible films which were filmed back to back and is, for all intents and purposes, one story/film simply told in two. Things like plot threads or characters being carried over aren’t quite the same in that sense, and are pretty much a staple of the series and certainly the Fleming novels. I don’t want them to repeat the Craig era, but at the same time some continuity, returning characters etc. is fine and can be interesting. It just depends on what they do.
When QOS was released, and hints of 'Quantum' operating as a front for something even more sinister were dropped, I figured they'd go one of two ways: A) Spectre is behind it all, B) something like Spectre is behind it all. Back then, either option would have worked for me. Assuming that Spectre would never return to the world of Bond, I was ready to embrace a new Blofeld / Moriarty for Bond (and who would have guessed that a film called SPECTRE would offer both, in a sense, 7 years later? ;-) ).
In any case, however we feel about Waltz as Blofeld, I think it's fair to say that the re-introduction of Spectre and its leader wasn't the smashing success we'd hoped for. If they now present us with a brand new, original yet traditional Darth Bond Villain as the next actor's nemesis, I'm game.
But I totally agree that the "personal" motives may have been overused between SF and NTTD. Silva, Blofeld and Safin were, in the end, not much more than vindictive bastards who failed to scare us or at least impress us with some evil masterplan, simply because the focus was never not on their big beef with Bond, M or whoever.
I want the next ubervillain to earn that competitive angle with Bond over the span of several films. Set him up as evil, introduce him to Bond, have Bond thwart his plans a few times before he starts to zoom in on Bond himself. Also, I like how the first few films dealt with it. Doctor No works for Spectre, but we don't even see Blofeld yet. Klebb and Grant work for Blofeld, but he's still in his chair somewhere. Largo works for Blofeld, but it's the same deal. Not until YOLT will we eventually see the man himself, and it's still not personal! They made us wait 6 films before Blofeld crossed a line that could have sent Bond on a personal vendetta if DAF had allowed it. My point is, please give us those colorful "number 2" types before we focus entirely on the big man in the dark.
Very well spoken....
Considering Barbara’s clear love for him, I wouldn’t be surprised if that happened. Even without the prosthetics, Barbara probably still wants him around, lol.
That would be sure to delight the folks on DCINB!
For me it's all about the tone. I wanted to see Daniel Craig's Moonraker and I only had copies of Skyfall or Casino Royale.
Yeah, but Connery had FRWL and YOLT and we loved that. I want a versatile Bond.
Moore went from MR to FYEO, you can't get much more versatile than that,