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
Really? So how long have Blofeld and White been at odds to the point Blofeld went to his house to try and kill him? The way Swann told the story she sounded as though she was a child when the incident happened and compared to White's current situation within the film his fallout with Blofeld seemed to have been recent; recent as in less than a year prior to tge events of SP.
Exactly! The writing is a frikkin mess.
The way Madeline mentioned the story in the train, it appeared that it may have been someone from SPECTRE who came to the house. Later, the way in which Blofeld recounts the story suggested to me that he could have been that man who made the visit, at that earlier time. I realize it didn't quite jive, like a few things in this film, and forgot to ask. Perhaps it was a concept that they started with in the script and failed to properly follow through on during the numerous rewrites?
I appreciate that it could be taken like this, but in many viewings I never deduced the "man" that came to kill White was Blofeld. I simply interpreted it as the man who came to kill White was simply another assassin, as part of the murky world he occupied, and that when Blofeld went to visit him it was just business!?
SPECTRE is turning into the biggest missed opportunity of the Craig era, to think what could have been done, introducing the organisation and ESB. Also they could have tied the films together so much more convincingly and cohesively.
I'm starting to understand the likes @Birdleson frustration after initially defending it on my first viewing.
That's what I thought too but with some thinking that it was Blofeld that showed up to the house in Swann's version of events, it serves the notion that the writing for this film severely lacks focus in parts.
I agree. To me it makes no sense that the man would be Blofeld, given the timeframe in question, but the inclusion of the Blofeld dialogue in the meteor chamber just serves to cloud the issue. It's not necessary. That being said, it's not enough of an issue for me to get my knickers in a twist.
This above . That's what I've thought from first viewing.
She hates guns because she had to kill some guy who came to kill her dad, when she was a child.
Blofelds's meteor room mention of visiting was just him telling her he had visited her in the past.
What the point of this mention was I don't know, but I don't think its connected to her story of the beretta under the sink.
==As for Bond handing her the loaded gun, this really does seem to be terrible writing.
I am trying to allow that maybe the scene makes sense and I don't see it, but it does seem he handed her a loaded gun to experiment with. ie whilst teaching a newbie about handguns, he hands her a loaded gun.
Nobody does that, least of all a trained agent. How could this scenario have escaped the eye of the editors? It makes no sense at all.
Again maybe I am missing something, because it just seems impossible that it could be written like this without anyone noticing.
Ahhh. That is it!! You are right. Of course. It all fits. The line really doesn't serve much purpose otherwise, but it does fit with the Tarantino film. Clever.
But why does she say she doesn't remember the visit. Does that have any significance, her answer?
I thought the same thing as both of you. Or is Blofeld the author of all of Swann's pain, too?
I'm pretty sure it may in fact be an unused flashback sequence showing the killer in White's house that Madeleine fires at, which likely would've played as she confessed the event to Bond while they were on the train. The gunman doesn't look very much like a young Oberhauser, going on height alone, but I'll let all of you be the judge.
This question, of whether Madeleine shot Blofeld or another man entirely in interesting, and one I still have of SP. The way Dr. Swann talks it's like she murdered the man, but I can't be certain. Maybe Mendes' commentary for the film will shed some light on all this? One hopes.
Man, that does seem right on now that you say it. Thanks anyway.
Man, I feel so sorry for anyone who's a Bond fan who cannot experience the sheer joy I get from this movie... it's so relaxed and full of adventure & romance... and an atypical Happy ending for Craig's Bond... the more it gets discussed and I hear about plot holes, inconsistencies and improbabilities the more I rely on my OWN reception of the film because it's not about picking apart a film unabashedly attempting to entertain without pretension, it's about MY squee factor. :))
Everything hangs together fine.
I would though like to know how we are to rationalize Bond handing a loaded gun to Swann to experiment with, when he is clearly of the opinion that she is not a gun person
This I think is a big gaffe, that should have been caught in post.
I think it's obvious that Swann killed the guy who came to kill her dad. I think that is made clear.
And as @leamole says, Seydoux herself explains that the Waltz line in the meteor room was a deliberate nod to Basterds.
This is something Mendes does well, little homages and nods to other films.
Helps if you've watched each film about 100x, but I have, as have many others here.
No matter, it all boils down to what you can & can't accept in an established character that you follow.
Kids today might not remember the "I understand its power now" controversy from Temple Of Doom, but it's the same thing over & over.
I just remember Monica Baccarin was hottest thing ever and Fillion was a real smooth operator.
I personally find that more than a little frustrating. It's a bad move to make in any movie, but especially a Bond film.
When watching a Bond adventure you're playing by the logic of the world that film presents and you use any information you can gleam from the characters to get an understanding of them and the plot as it factors into that world. When a director then winks playfully to another film using a character's backstory, as we got with Dr. Swann and Basterds here, the world of Bond clashes with a reference to a world outside of his and found in another film entirely, which perplexes.
What results is a confusing situation where, just to leave behind a pseudo-clever wink to another film, Mendes creates confusion amongst audiences as we try to determine if that part of Madeleine's backstory (her shooting a man in her house) has any other relevance to the film and Blofeld or to our understanding of her as a character, or worse, if it's nothing but another throw away allusion.
I don't know why Mendes is so damn referential as a director, but sometimes he really takes it too far, especially in an instance like this when what is presented as an interesting part of a character's backstory is revealed as just a shoehorned reference that only exists because of a film outside the world of Bond.
not really obvious.
I didn't catch it until @leamole pointed it out.
But yes for sure the line just kind of hangs there, with a "is that supposed to mean something that I didn't quite catch" kind of feel.
But now that I know what it means I do think it's kind of clever.
I totally get where those guys are coming from though. Sometimes you see a film and it just doesn't work for you. I had that experience with SF. Saw it a few times and I just didn't enjoy it - that's when all the flaws come to the surface because instead of just sitting back and being immersed, you're totally detached.
I read the criticisms of SP and most of them make sense. Like the fact that after Mexico most of the scenes and locations are devoid of people. Nine Eyes is about to go live and it's just C in that huge building etc. It's fair comment. Just like the plot and story are not as good as they might have been and the shootout at the crater is a bit lame etc.
It's just that for me the overall impact/effect was sufficient for me to overlook the flaws.
From a personal perspective I felt the plot issues with SP are much less in your face than with SF though. They're pot holes as opposed to the gigantic craters in the SF story.
Only one person I know amongst my friends genuinely loved it.