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
I agree I loved Waltz he was dark chilling and creepy and very good. Much better then Bardem in my opinion who really felt out of place in the Craig era the more I think about it. Not saying he is bad just saying he could of been way better especially when compared to the likes of Le Chiffe and Dominic Green Silva comes off like a villain from the Brosnan era. For Me Craig's films have tried to be close to fleming with some movie elements in there. Casino Royale Quantum of Solace and Spectre all basically hit that mark (with some doing it better then others) with Skyfall shrugs.
Something I do Want to point out was anyone else reminded of Le Gérant. I mean ion both instances it's a character who shared a father figure and yet if I remember NDOD correctly didn't Le Gérant hate Draco for being nicer to his Son in law then his own son?
Again Not a complaint as I love the Benson novels (an opinion I find is a kin to saying I hate 007 around here for some reason) so EON borrowing from them is not a horrible thing. In Fact Spectre 2.0 feels a lot like The Union.. Again I am sure I am reading to much into things but I would love to do a comparison from book to film to see the bits of Fleming and Post Fleming (colonel Sun is apparently word for word in Spectre in the torture scene) novels.
Overall I feel Waltz matches with the villains of Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace and is acted quite nicely (though the nickname for 007 is a little odd) and again Craig is the First Bond to take on 2 (3 if you count the Oberhauser name) Fleming Villains. first time really since Moore?
Yes. A real laff riot, that one.
And how about the end credits? :)) :)) :)) :-j
LOL! Of course!
About this...when i first saw the scene i was a bit confused too and slightly annoyed. Then my intepretation was that it emphasises his authority. I mean, the fact that he has someone willing to help him do things, even down to something as simple as moving a microphone, means that he has great authority and is much feared.
I saw the metorite scene as a metaphor for SPECTRE itself, about how it is powerful and would make a big impact on this world. Again, i believe that this scene could be better executed.
The meteor metaphor lacked any real finesse or subtly, like the rest of the film.
SP is a little ham-fisted in this regard and lacks the nuance of SF. The parallels between Bond and Silva as warring siblings was much better embedded in SF, in SP everything is spelled out too clearly. There is even a moment in the torture scene where Blofeld refers to Madeline as the “daughter of an assassin, the only one who could understand you”. I mean, really?! Talk about signposting things for the audience. Mendes was smart enough not to do this in SF, so I’m curious why he let it slip here. I suppose laziness would be easiest answer. Maybe he was just there for the paycheck?
In terms of Waltz: he’s an intriguing actor as he has essentially been doing the same shtick since ‘Inglourious Basterds’. I actually thought he calmed down a lot of his eccentricities for the role and was surprisingly reserved. Almost to the point he was sleepwalking through the performance. He does indulge himself in some of his usual traits by the end.
I do like how Mendes embraces the ‘Blofeld’ iconography slowly:
- The burnt photo obscuring the young Oberhauser’s face.
- The Rome meeting where Blofeld is only shot in the shadows (Waltz is his most effective here).
- His introductionary scene wearing the Nehru jacket
- The white cat
- The name reveal
- Leading to the infamous scar
The only problem I have with the Blofeld reveal was it meant nothing in the context of the story. Wouldn’t it have been more effective if the reveal was the other way around? Bond finds out that Blofeld, the mysterious head of SPECTRE, is actually his step-brother Franz Oberhauser. That way it actually means something and we could have avoided all the unnecessary “is he, isn’t he” bullshit over the nature of Waltz’s role.
Why does Waltz playing Blofeld in Craig's fourth outing have anything to do with the Brosnan era villains?...
Nothing. Completely nothing. But I found it only valid to strengthen my point with a few previous Bond villains. My point: We could have head worse villains. And frankly, I think Waltz was perfect.
It wasn't my intention to ridicule the Brosnan films. But, for me personally, I found Gustav Graves, Renard, Elliot Carver and even Alec Trevelyan rather weak, superficial villains. Actually, the real Brosnan villain who stood out for me, was Elektra King. Deliciously and convincingly played by Sophie Marceau. In many ways she has the same kind of personal reasoning that Blofeld in SP has.
Regarding Alec Trevelyan vs Raoul Silva: Silva is obviously way more memorable. Mind my words in 30 years time from now.
Agree to disagree then, as I found Silva to be forgettable and a straight copy of TDK's Joker, nothing more.
I found Silva's entrance in SF besting every, really EVERY villain entrance in a Bond film. The very aspect 'villain entrance' doesn't even apply to Heath Ledger's 'The Joker'. In many ways Silva's entrance reminded me of some other great, though rare 'villain entrances'. For instance Dr. No in "DN", Blofeld in "SP" and in "DAF". But IMO Silva's entrance tops every Bond film...easily.
I couldn't agree more. The metaphor scene was unimpressive as a whole and many people emerged from the cinema questioning the purpose of putting that scene in. If the writers wanted another metaphor to mirror that of the "rats" in SF, they failed quite badly, as it got rebutted by Bond, was never mentioned again after the meteor scene, and it wasnt even clear what the metaphor was trying to represent.
There wasnt as much depth in SP as SF, and yes I agree that it might have been laziness on the crew's part.
Thats a very nice analysis of Blofeld's reveal that you have written! :) IMO it was one of the best bits of the movie, my only complaint would be that the filmmakers treated the cat as a reference to previous Bond movies, instead of it being an icon of ESB in this franchise. It featuring more prominently would be very welcome. And yea doing it backwards would be much more effective to the general movie audience. This could be due to the filmmakers neglecting the non-Bond-fan community, as the name ESB does not hold any significance to them, and the white cat too, as well as the iconic scar...revealing ESB as Bond's brother (which everyone would know about its significance) would be much better, as u said.
In hindsight, I overthought Blofeld's reveal, thinking that the filmmakers would not be so dumb as to treat ESB's reveal as a shocking twist only to have his iconic jacket appear in trailers on the actor that would actually play ESB. Hence I expected C (who is played by an actor with a talent for playing crazy villains), to be ESB. That, above all, would be the reason I am disappointed with SP. Nonetheless, Waltz is still a great Blofeld.
Attempting to find any deeper parallels between the meteorite scene and the rest of the film is a foolish endeavour.
It’s obviously meant to be a play on the relationship that Blofeld has had on Bond’s life; watching from afar before finally making an entrance. That’s kinda it. It ties into the whole “everything is connected” nonsense.
Thanks @OmegaX I think it would have been so much more effective if the reveal was handled the other way around. In this sense:
- Instead of hearing the name ‘The Pale King’ in Mexico, Bond would overhear the name Blofeld.
- He could ask Moneypenny who reveals that the ‘legend of Blofeld’ is a some kind of grand myth in espionage circles. The sort of ghost stories that spies hear whilst training that dates back to the Cold War. (This would be a nice way of tying in Blofeld’s cultural and historical significance back into the new rebooted era – he would still be the omniscient epitome of evil).
- Bond goes to the meeting and sees Blofeld and hears the shadowy figure addressed as such, before Ernst reveals himself to Bond, 007 would recognise him as Franz Oberhauser.
- Cue Blofeld’s introduction as it’s revealed that he was actually Franz Oberhauser all along.
It would only amount to a few minor script changes and it would have improved the film tenfold and strengthened the marketing programme as well.
This way Mendes still gets to keep his dodgy ‘half-brother’ nonsense and Blofeld also gets a proper airing.
For me one of the biggest faults of the film was the handling of Blofeld. Essentially, Mendes really fudged his execution of the character.
Has anyone tried to find deeper parallels? It's a bit of theatre. Something that's always fun to see in a Bond film.
Personally, I would have preferred a more physically intimidating Blofeld. A taller and more substantial man. However, it is what it is.
PS: I liked all the Brosnan era vilains except that loser Renard, and perhaps Elektra too. Trevalyn, Carver & Graves were each OTT brilliant in their own way, as were all of DC's villains as well. Having said that, I personally slightly prefer the first three (Le Chiffre, Greene & Silva) to Blofeld-Waltz....whether that is on account of script problems I have with SP, or Waltz himself I'm not sure. I will only know in time.
Exactly ;-). That's the 'fun of Bond' if you ask me.
From Russia With Love:
The Man With The Golden Gun:
There's nothing too deep about above introductions uttered by the leading villains. But they tremendously worked. The parabels, the sinister comparisons, it's oozing 'Bond'. And now read these transcripts:
This is quintessential Bond, James Bond. And I actually think Mendes really knows how to return to this sinister and sometimes quite psychotic villain introductions. These parabels, comparisons, etc....can really lift up the reasoning behind the villain. And IMO that worked tremendously in SF, though it also worked in SP.
I really disliked that character and the acting.
Looking over his shoulder at Sciarras funeral.
The reunion line
His facial expression before he tells James it was all him.
That ridiculous tapping on his keyboard thing somehow really annoyed me every time.
I just think he was awful in that. Totally rubbish parody-like Bond baddie.