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
Introduced in the Christopher Wood novel of Moonraker. On first meeting
Bond, Drax is on the far side of a long room and speaks to Bond as he walks
Towards him.
I know it's kinda off topic but I think the Bond movies need stronger villains that know what they like. For example...and I know this is a terrible one cause most of you don't like him...I loved Zorin in AVTAK. He carried the movie and his motives were nicely explained and you felt like you knew the character. Same goes for Silva.
Don't worry about it. It's like someone promising to come and shit in your garden tomorrow. We're all good.
My impression is that Waltz was a hit with the portrayal of the character. Almost like Bond in the last 3 films, his character is not seemingly complete in the film. I do hope we see the next arch of his story. I had the expectation going into the film that he would be chilling in an all-pervasive way. What he gave us was a cold and distanced performance. I like the Dr. No comparison in that regard, especially since he sees so little screen time.
As for when he was explaining his transformation from the child Bond knew, I kept thinking, "This is so illogical!" That was simultaneously followed by, "And he is so much more terrifying for it." He thinks of himself as a genius, but he is really a psychopath and the references he gives to how he had to kill his father because of his paternal bond with Bond was downright scary.
Please elucidate. I think Blofeld laconically issuing orders is more effective that what they did.
Then when they get to his base he takes them to a room with a piece of meteor. A scene that went nowhere and meant nothing. Came across as pretentious.
What was so great about him?
The Rome meeting sets up Blofeld perfectly. The idea that an underling would move a microphone a matter of inches shows the deference every member has for him. The way he lingers before speaking, they hang on his every word. The scene says so much about character, it's directed to perfection.
The meteor is metaphor for Oberhauser/ESB entering Bond's world.
For someone who claims they want Bond movies with a brain, might want to engage yours next viewing.
The desert is also a metaphor for Bond's dry emotionless world and the meteor is Blofeld impacting and attempting to destroy it, or at least leave a lot of damage.
Yeah, good direction sucks.
You don't need to be so hostile. We disagree. That's fine.
Indeed. According to some it means nothing, though. If you don't want to like something I guess you can just play ignorant.
Try not to be so flippant and dismissive then. It just makes you look more ridiculous when you haven't bothered to think before typing.
I think we're both calm, or at least I am. Just don't get why you'd join a forum to be so dismissive.
I'm not entirely convinced by the personal link between him and Bond as it has not a lot of time on the screen, and Bond does not seem too concerned by it (Waltz seems to take it much more personally than he does). Although I'm not sure if the personal link bring so much more to the character. Maybe if the film had let this relation go for a bit longer, this could have become thrilling.
but I like the idea of a new version of Blofeld : Dawson, Pleasance, Savalas, Gray... They all had a different take on Blofeld and it was nice to have so many interpretation of this character played by terrific actors. So I'm glad to see a more sarcastic Blofeld.
I only have 3 regrets :
- the "My name is Ernst Stavro Blofeld" is a bit too obvious, and I would have like a more subtle line. For example "You know James, Franz Oberhauser died long ago. People call me Ernst now / I go by another name".
- I'm not so sure about the Pleasance like scar. Since we had a new Blofeld, why not let Waltz have his own Blofeld, rather than copy the scar of one of his predecessor (but don't get me wrong, the make up is quite thrilling).
- and lastly, I'm sad we did not have more scenes with a silent Blofeld. His best moments are when he is menacing in the first scene, and in the helicopter. I feel there is one scene missing between the "Cuckoo scene" and the "Meteor" one.
And last question : do you think Waltz will come back for another one ? He obviously hate the promo and interviews that go with the film, he can now have any role he wants with any director. Do you think he will be interested to come back to play a scared Blofeld ?
[Last scene : could someone please edit the title of this topic out of respect for Christoph's name ?]
I think he was far more menacing than Bardem. His smile is simply nasty. He rarely raise his voice, always contained. And if you have not seen hatred in his eyes... Well, I think you need to re-read the description Fleming does of Blofeld and which I pasted in an earlier post.
Don't feel the need to stop because others enjoyed it. The vast majority of fans loved SF and I never stopped expressing my disinterest in the film any time the topic came up. You feel how you feel and it can't be changed.
As someone who thoroughly enjoyed the film, I hope you keep writing what you think - even if critical. We all don't have to agree. (Mostly) adults here. We can take it.