Where would you rank SPECTRE? (no spoilers)

1121315171836

Comments

  • MurdockMurdock Mr. 2000
    edited February 2016 Posts: 15,914
    Why is it bad? It waters down Blofeld as a character, it waters down his motivations, it makes him look like a pathetic child instead of a creepy and intimidating genius presence. At the end of the film I almost felt "poor little Blofeld" which is terrible.

    Blofeld was already watered down in his original run. Too many recasts and his appearence in Diamonds Are Forever was the final nail in the coffin for old Blofeld. And of course this.
    28.jpg

    His origin may be different in this reboot but he's still a better character than his lame appearance in DAF.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    The thing that is really moronic about the whole idea is that it has absolutely zero impact on the film. It's the reason I can watch it and not let it bother me that much.

    If you're going to take the inane step to include it then wouldn't you have it go somewhere?

    But if you take out the Oberhauser angle and just have him say 'you came across me many times. My name is ESB' it makes no difference at all to how events pan out.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger On Her Secret Majesty s Service
    Posts: 35,511
    It is a bit like when The Joker turned out to be the one who killed Bruce s parents. Not according to canon, but it worked within the context.
  • RC7 wrote: »
    I like Fiennes as M.

    And yeah, what @Birdleson said earlier. I'm so done talking about it. How can people not see the connection they were trying to make?

    Why is it bad? It waters down Blofeld as a character, it waters down his motivations, it makes him look like a pathetic child instead of a creepy and intimidating genius presence. At the end of the film I almost felt "poor little Blofeld" which is terrible.

    The dumbest thing in the entire franchise, bar none. Worse than the floating gondola and the CG tidal wave.

    Bit over the top. The tidal wave is the one thing in the series I don't think you can justify. It's an abomination. The Oberhauser/Blofeld angle is just a different take on the source, the sort of thing you see all the time in comics (yes, I know Bond isn't a comic). I see it as an experiment that won't be repeated, but it isn't enough to make me loath the movie. I see it as a creative decision that was made for valid reasons in the mind of Mendes, something that cannot be said of Tamahori's decision making.

    I also don't see the watering down of Blofeld's motivations. As an entity and organisation they are exactly what I would expect. Blofeld's thirst for power is not motivated by anything other than his psychopathic tendencies. For Bond the events of the four films comprise his world, for Blofeld, they aren't. Bond represents the proverbial fly in the ointment whose destruction is serendipitously personal. The reason it is front and centre is because this is a series of Bond films, not Blofeld films.

    Totally understand why people wouldn't like this angle, it's very obvious to me why.

    Well said.

  • IT's just too much of a cooincidence. Too soap opera.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 5,054
    IT's just too much of a cooincidence. Too soap opera.
    Yes! and just too easy to write and so damn obvious and unimaginative. The character could have been presented in a more mysterious manner. Slowly, SPECTRE and the magnitude of it's reach could have been revealed. As in the early Connery films, Blofeld could have remained a faceless mastermind who only connection to Bond is seeing him as the first, real, threat to his organization. I would have preferred not to have seen his identity revealed in the first film to feature the organization SPECTRE

  • edited February 2016 Posts: 388
    Murdock wrote: »
    Why is it bad? It waters down Blofeld as a character, it waters down his motivations, it makes him look like a pathetic child instead of a creepy and intimidating genius presence. At the end of the film I almost felt "poor little Blofeld" which is terrible.

    Blofeld was already watered down in his original run. Too many recasts and his appearence in Diamonds Are Forever was the final nail in the coffin for old Blofeld. And of course this.
    28.jpg

    His origin may be different in this reboot but he's still a better character than his lame appearance in DAF.

    In my view, the best ESB is the one in FRWL and TB, but come on! Waltz wasn´t going to be hired for that kind of role. The lowest pont for Blofeld, as Murdock has said, is that creepy travestite scene. In addition, so many re-casts, different looks and continuity inconsistences were much horrible than SP backstory, which is not good but it is far to ruin the movie for me.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited February 2016 Posts: 23,883
    Gray was a very watchable Blofeld in my view. So was his double, and his cat. I prefer him to Pleasance.
  • BirdlesonBirdleson San Jose, CAModerator
    edited February 2016 Posts: 28,316
    I like the transvestite scene. It makes sense to me. The fact that everyone thinks it's out of character adds to the appeal. It's not implied that he's dressed that way as preference (though he does seem very comfortable in those clothes), it's a disguise, a shell game. Gray is not my favorite Bolfeld, but he's not one of the worst either. Like @bondjames , I prefer him to Pleasance.
  • MayDayDiVicenzoMayDayDiVicenzo Here and there
    edited February 2016 Posts: 5,036
    bondjames wrote: »
    Gray was a very watchable Blofeld in my view. So was his double, and his cat. I prefer him to Pleasance.

    Absolutely.

    Gray is my favourite on a pure entertainment level, although Savalas is probably the best Blofeld.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 15,980
    Pleasance played him with so little character... "Kill Bond now" was the only thing he said with any spirit.
  • Posts: 805
    To be honest I just got the dvd and watched it and I find it a mixed bag. Most bond films have something to commend them. The pts is great but it loses any real drive halfway. I also have personal niggle which are so distracting they really annoy me.

    1. The expositional dialogue on the boat with tanner is awful. Every line is spoon feeding information. Same with the Lucia seduction scene. It's just line / rebutall / line / rebutall

    2. I've mentioned it before but it's just weird seeing Rome/ London/ the train / cns building so damn deserted. The car chase has no real jeopardy as they aren't avoiding anything. Just driving down one deserted street after another.

    3. The climax is weak. I don't even know what the climax is. Q deletes the files of a global computer programme. Sorry but people solving problems on computers by tapping the keyboard and telling us that they're "in" hasn't been gripping since the 80s. What would the climax have been if bond went from Tangier to anywhere in the world except London? And Madeleine hadn't walked off on her own.

    4. The score

    There's some nice bits. I like about half of it but it's less than the sum of its parts.
  • BirdlesonBirdleson San Jose, CAModerator
    Posts: 28,316
    Matt007 wrote: »
    1. The expositional dialogue on the boat with tanner is awful. Every line is spoon feeding information. Same with the Lucia seduction scene. It's just line / rebutall / line / rebutall

    That exchange has bugged me more than any other section of the film, right from the first viewing. I hear ya'!
  • The script in general feels artificial.
  • MurdockMurdock Mr. 2000
    edited February 2016 Posts: 15,914
    Gray may have been entertaining, I liked him, but he wasn't Blofeld. No self respecting head of one of the most powerful crime syndicates in the world would stoop that low. If he wanted to leave Vegas in a disguise all he had to do was change out of that Nehru Jacket, put on a suit and a pair of sunglasses, maybe a fake mustache for good measure and nobody would even know.
  • ForYourEyesOnlyForYourEyesOnly In the untained cradle of the heavens
    edited February 2016 Posts: 1,984
    In the original films (and the novels), Blofeld was a megalomaniacal mastermind who controlled events from behind the scenes and represented the ultimate evil behind the work of all the minions who served as the main villains in the film (FRWL, TB, YOLT etc.)

    Spectre actually gets that part right (although they just unconnectedly suggest that Blofeld influenced the events of CR, QoS and SF in an attempt to tie everything together), but they bring it down with his motivations as a petulant man-child. The original Blofeld was so much more menacing because his motivations weren't centered around hurting or manipulating Bond - it was the sense of worldwide domination in many forms (not always the best, but still).

    As for Gray vs Pleasance, I'm not sure. Pleasance looks absolutely pitiful when he stands next to Connery (it's not just stature, he loses all of his menace). The only good bits he had were when he was unseen, and his reveal. Afterwards, he just lost his sense of menace. The "you can watch it all on TV" part was cringeworthy for me.

    Gray, I suppose, was more entertaining. He never felt threatening (I suppose that has more to do with the theme of the film and how he was told to play the character), but he did feel like he was acting better than Pleasance. And "aren't we showing a little more cheek than usual" is actually a good pun.
  • MurdockMurdock Mr. 2000
    Posts: 15,914
    The only original Blofeld's I could get behind was the Unseen FRWL/TB Blofeld and Savalas. Pleasance was a Decoy and Gray was Blofeld's new #2 posing as him. DAF comes after YOLT and before OHMSS in my mind. :P
  • ForYourEyesOnlyForYourEyesOnly In the untained cradle of the heavens
    Posts: 1,984
    Yeah, the unseen Blofeld was the best.
  • The Pleasance bashing kills me inside... Let me ask you guys... which out of YOLT, OHMSS and DAF Blofeld is the most ingrained in popular culture? It is certainly not OHMSS Blofeld and it is definitely not drag Blofeld.

    Smart alecks answer "FRWL, TB Blofeld". Which is correct. But still.

    Fact still remains that Pleasance was the one who brought a real and raw menace to the film (stature doesn't mean a thing in my book). He's the classic scarred Blofeld. Although I admit, classics are not well-liked around here... OHMSS and DAF Blofeld are not nearly as iconic. In fact, drag Blofeld ought to be erased from history.

    And I think @ForYourEyesOnly you are misinterpreting that line... He means it ironically. As in, "I am about to start WW3, and it's all on TV for your viewing pleasure."
  • w2bondw2bond is indeed a very rare breed
    Posts: 2,038
    RC7 wrote: »
    w2bond wrote: »
    24 for me now. It is disappointing, frustrating and deflating.

    At least QoS has a decent score, and is only disappointing, and SF is frustrating

    You should probably check out until a new actor is confirmed.

    Haha probably! It's not Craig that is the problem. Hopefully if he does return it's a return to form, straight forward mission with a Bondian score. Not too much to ask?
    RC7 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »

    You should probably check out until a new actor is confirmed.

    But the majority who are disappointed with Craig's last 3 liked Casino Royale. It's not Craig that's the problem for most folk.

    If you were disappointed with the follow-up, frustrated by the third and disappointed, frustrated and deflated by the fourth I wouldn't say the odds of number five being a 'hit' for you are particularly good without a changing of the guard and direction.

    If someone like Martin Campbell came back to direct I would be ecstatic. His Bond films have an energy that's been missing recently
  • ForYourEyesOnlyForYourEyesOnly In the untained cradle of the heavens
    Posts: 1,984

    And I think @ForYourEyesOnly you are misinterpreting that line... He means it ironically. As in, "I am about to start WW3, and it's all on TV for your viewing pleasure."

    I know what he meant. There's just something about the delivery of the line (or the line itself) that makes me uneasy.
  • Posts: 4,325
    I like Fiennes as M.

    And yeah, what @Birdleson said earlier. I'm so done talking about it. How can people not see the connection they were trying to make?

    Why is it bad? It waters down Blofeld as a character, it waters down his motivations, it makes him look like a pathetic child instead of a creepy and intimidating genius presence. At the end of the film I almost felt "poor little Blofeld" which is terrible.

    The dumbest thing in the entire franchise, bar none. Worse than the floating gondola and the CG tidal wave.

    To be fair DAF did a lot to water down Blofeld's character.
  • GBFGBF
    Posts: 2,899
    Has the relationship between Bond and Hitchcock films ever been discussed here in more detail?
  • BirdlesonBirdleson San Jose, CAModerator
    Posts: 28,316
    Yes, it has.
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,021
    full.jpg
  • After my 4th time, 1st in BD, it keeps #4, close to 3rd position. First act is amazing, second and third are good, not great. It will remain on my Top 10 for decades.
  • Posts: 10,857
    I'm not much of a ranker ( no matter what you've heard ) I regard it as a good solid
    Bond outing possibly in the middle of my top ten, as for me it gets better with each
    Viewing. :)
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 15,980
    I'm not much of a ranker ( no matter what you've heard ) I regard it as a good solid
    Bond outing possibly in the middle of my top ten, as for me it gets better with each
    Viewing. :)
    Me too (I use that Brosnan quote a lot, don't I? :D )... it floats between #4 and #8 depending upon how recently I've watched it.
  • Posts: 10,857
    Me Too ! ( it is catchy ) ;) it will take a while for it to settle, but I'm thinking
    around the #6 or #7 spot.
  • SP is tricky to place. It has real positives, real negatives, real on-the-edge-of-your-seat moments, and some real cliche moments. Overall it starts off well and declines in quality as it progresses.

    I have it in the middle, at 13. Which puts it above SF, at 14.
Sign In or Register to comment.