93 replies to this topic

[sharpshooter]

If they shot back to back, a burst of filming over a period of time, then that would give Craig a longer time to rest after that period of filming with just the marketing for each being his commitment. And, if they staggered the release dates, by that time Craig could be ripe for one very last outing, equaling Moore's record. But hey, there's a lot of things that have to go right before we reach that territory.

[tdalton]

If they did this, it would have to be either a 1 or a 2 year gap between films.  If, as many around here have suggested, EON is really disappointed with the massive box office of SPECTRE, then they're not going to go for a late-spring or summer release.  They'll stand much more of a risk of making less money than they did this time around with a summer release than they do with a fall one.

[Surrie]

If this is true I wonder how these two films will be released.  A film with a cliffhanger should be followed by the conclusion within two (Star Wars-style) and not three years.  

 

Heck, even better within one (Back to the future-wise)

 

Pro: Two more Craig movies with him being the same age before he grows too old.

 

Con: Hasn´t Craig already given everything he wanted as Bond?  And is this back-to-back filming with cliffhanger not too much of a Marvel/Disney-construct?

 

I doubt we'll know anything about what they're doing in the spring, aside from maybe who the new (hopefully) writers are.  Most of that time would be most likely spent getting the basic idea for the next film nailed down . 

 

Hopefully they will take their time when doing this - let's hope for a great story!

 

 

I hope not.  Taking their time has proven not to yield better results, only more second-guessing and meddling.

 

Second guessing and meddling may be a construct of the current writing team... but what if EON took a chance with new writers who took their time to devise an excellent story. I'm sure the audience would much prefer waiting than rushing and then being disappointed in the theatres. 

 

 

"In Spring we start again...". We will just have to wait and see!

It's still too early for anything to be confirmed in my view, but I hope I'm proven wrong.

 

 

It does seem quite quick, but these are Babs' words not mine!

[Tiin007]

And, if they staggered the release dates, by that time Craig could be ripe for one very last outing, equaling Moore's record. But hey, there's a lot of things that have to go right before we reach that territory.

 

Very wishful thinking, sharpshooter. I would be thrilled if Craig equalled Moore's record, but I think the chances of it happening are slim to none.

 

Heck, even Craig doing more than just Bond 25 seems so unlikely. 

[Surrie]

 

And, if they staggered the release dates, by that time Craig could be ripe for one very last outing, equaling Moore's record. But hey, there's a lot of things that have to go right before we reach that territory.

 

Very wishful thinking, sharpshooter. I would be thrilled if Craig equalled Moore's record, but I think the chances of it happening are slim to none.

 

Heck, even Craig doing more than just Bond 25 seems so unlikely. 

 

 

It does seem highly unlikely but I would welcome Craig equaling Moore's stint at Bond. 

[tdalton]

I'd rather see Craig move on before we reach that point.  He's already tiring of the role, if his comments during the supposed "promotion" of SPECTRE are anything to go by.  I'd rather see a younger actor who actually wants to be there rather than someone simply going through the motions. 

[Tiin007]

I'd rather see Craig move on before we reach that point.  He's already tiring of the role, if his comments during the supposed "promotion" of SPECTRE are anything to go by.  I'd rather see a younger actor who actually wants to be there rather than someone simply going through the motions. 

 

If those are the two alternatives, then yes, I agree with you. 

 

But if Craig can stay enthused at least inasmuch as it not having a negative effect on his performance (as it clearly did on Connery for YOLT), then I'd be up for Craig continuing even until the point where he is visibly aging, provided that they tweak some of the action scenes accordingly. If Liam Neeson can do it into his sixties, and Cruise can do it into his mid-fifties, then I see no reason why Craig cannot do the same, from a purely physical perspective. Again, this may require adapting some of the action scenes so as to still remain plausible, but if Craig is willing, then I'd be quite happy.

 

But if, as you said, retaining Craig will mean he is merely dialing it in and "going through the motions," then I'd be against such a suggestion.

 

As long as it's viable, I like longevity in the role. Especially with an actor of Craig's caliber.  

[tdalton]

I think it's already had an impact on his performance.  I thought SPECTRE was, by far, his worst performance in the role.  Granted, he wasn't helped by that trainwreck of a script, but his boredom with it came across on screen.  He was much better in previous outings.

[sharpshooter]

I thought his performance was on par with previous films, to be honest. I've never felt like Craig put in a sub-par performance, regardless of how his public comments may be interpreted.

[RMc2]

This is very exciting! It confirms what we suspected about EON's plans, and hopefully increases the chances of Craig's return.

 

tdalton, I felt similarly about Craig's performance the first time I saw the film, but on repeat viewings I think it's actually right up there with the others. I think in SP, Craig's Bond is meant to be more nihilistic, given his experiences, and his disinterest/boredom at times is intentional.

[New Digs]

The Blofeld angle in Spectre was the films biggest disappointment. Waltz was too along the lines of Pleasance for me, and my idea of Blofeld is more serious in the Savalas/OHMSS mode. That would have fitted better with the Craig style of films, instead of the Blofeld character we ultimately got with Spectre.

 

I'm not fussed if Waltz returns or not, though given a change of director and a better script he could bring much more to the role. 

[Blofeld's Cat]

 

 

(For the record, I think the film might have been better off dropping the family/rivalry issues between Bond and Oberhauser and just reimaging Blofeld, just as M, Q and Moneypenny were revamped for the Craig era, but that's just my view.)

 

 

I think everyone agrees with you on this!

 

Yes, that aspect of the relationship is just, well, cuckoo really.

[tdalton]

I'm not fussed if Waltz returns or not, though given a change of director and a better script he could bring much more to the role. 

 

I'm not sure that Waltz changes his take on the character much even if the script were better and someone else was directing the film.  I didn't think that his take on Blofeld was all that different from his role in Inglorious Basterds.  He brought a similar quirkiness to part with a touch of menace there (finally) at the end.  I imagine that's why EON hired him, to do his usual take on the villain.  

[Surrie]

This is very exciting! It confirms what we suspected about EON's plans, and hopefully increases the chances of Craig's return.

 

tdalton, I felt similarly about Craig's performance the first time I saw the film, but on repeat viewings I think it's actually right up there with the others. I think in SP, Craig's Bond is meant to be more nihilistic, given his experiences, and his disinterest/boredom at times is intentional.

 

I'm in agreement. I don't think Craig's personal feelings were reflected in his recent performance, but more of how Bond's behaviour was to be witnessed in this instalment. Even his scenes with Blofeld where he is face to face with such a revelation from his childhood, he is nonchalant. Whereas previously we have seen more of a reaction from Craig's Bond, usually driven by his pain or anger, but this time round we saw him with more control.

[SecretAgentFan]

For me, Craig was the best thing about SPECTRE.

[Guy Haines]

The Blofeld angle in Spectre was the films biggest disappointment. Waltz was too along the lines of Pleasance for me, and my idea of Blofeld is more serious in the Savalas/OHMSS mode. That would have fitted better with the Craig style of films, instead of the Blofeld character we ultimately got with Spectre.
 
I'm not fussed if Waltz returns or not, though given a change of director and a better script he could bring much more to the role.

I wouldn't say that Donald Pleasance as Blofeld wasn't serious - admittedly it's been made to seem less so by the Mike Myers/Dr Evil spoof. But his Blofeld didn't seem like a joke to me, any more than Waltz's take on the role. Waltz wasn't given enough time in SPECTRE although he more than made the most of the screen time he had. I think my only "grouse" if you like about his portrayal is that the usual "props" were unnecessary. Waltz is a good enough actor the create a new take on ESB. If we can accept a new interpretation of M, Q and Moneypenny, why not allow a Double Oscar winner to recreate Ernst Stavro Blofeld without the (by now) dated dress sense, the cat and the highly unlikely link between the villain and the hero from decades ago?

[Surrie]

For me, Craig was the best thing about SPECTRE.

 

Agreed. But IMO Seydoux closely followed. 

[plankattack]

 

 

I wouldn't say that Donald Pleasance as Blofeld wasn't serious - admittedly it's been made to seem less so by the Mike Myers/Dr Evil spoof. But his Blofeld didn't seem like a joke to me, any more than Waltz's take on the role. Waltz wasn't given enough time in SPECTRE although he more than made the most of the screen time he had. I think my only "grouse" if you like about his portrayal is that the usual "props" were unnecessary. Waltz is a good enough actor the create a new take on ESB. If we can accept a new interpretation of M, Q and Moneypenny, why not allow a Double Oscar winner to recreate Ernst Stavro Blofeld without the (by now) dated dress sense, the cat and the highly unlikely link between the villain and the hero from decades ago?

 

 

I've said before that I find SP somewhat flaccid and lazy, and the characterization of Blofeld, either in script or director/actor interpretation, is a prime example. The cat and the nehru jacket straddle the line between fan in-joke/homage and spoof, but the "big reveal" of the scar, well after the film has established Oberhauser as Blofeld, is a pointless, anti-climatic, "moment." 

 

It was Brozza who said that Austin Powers had pushed the series into a corner that had made it hard to manoeuver, and yet a decade later, the series resurrected its source material's major villain by evoking the very character that had so effectively sent up the series itself.

 

Sure, for fans, we see Waltz and link him instantly to Pleasance; for the average movie-goer, the association is with a comedy spoof, not the villain from a middling, one-of-many, Bond films from 50 years ago. "Uh, isn't that the one with the volcano?"

 

Blofeld in SP? A mis-imagined recharacterization, a misuse of a very good actor, and a missed opportunity for the series. That said, I guess it's an homage to the series' consistently underwhelming portrayal of the character.

[New Digs]

 

The Blofeld angle in Spectre was the films biggest disappointment. Waltz was too along the lines of Pleasance for me, and my idea of Blofeld is more serious in the Savalas/OHMSS mode. That would have fitted better with the Craig style of films, instead of the Blofeld character we ultimately got with Spectre.
 
I'm not fussed if Waltz returns or not, though given a change of director and a better script he could bring much more to the role.

I wouldn't say that Donald Pleasance as Blofeld wasn't serious - admittedly it's been made to seem less so by the Mike Myers/Dr Evil spoof. But his Blofeld didn't seem like a joke to me, any more than Waltz's take on the role. Waltz wasn't given enough time in SPECTRE although he more than made the most of the screen time he had. I think my only "grouse" if you like about his portrayal is that the usual "props" were unnecessary. Waltz is a good enough actor the create a new take on ESB. If we can accept a new interpretation of M, Q and Moneypenny, why not allow a Double Oscar winner to recreate Ernst Stavro Blofeld without the (by now) dated dress sense, the cat and the highly unlikely link between the villain and the hero from decades ago?

 

 

 

 

Yes, fair point. Serious wasn't really the right word, as much of Pleasance's villainy has suffered because of Austin Powers. Perhaps I mean more realistic less cliched. Agree totally we didn't need the suit and the scar. A subtle glimpse of the white cat would have been enough. 

 

 

I wouldn't say that Donald Pleasance as Blofeld wasn't serious - admittedly it's been made to seem less so by the Mike Myers/Dr Evil spoof. But his Blofeld didn't seem like a joke to me, any more than Waltz's take on the role. Waltz wasn't given enough time in SPECTRE although he more than made the most of the screen time he had. I think my only "grouse" if you like about his portrayal is that the usual "props" were unnecessary. Waltz is a good enough actor the create a new take on ESB. If we can accept a new interpretation of M, Q and Moneypenny, why not allow a Double Oscar winner to recreate Ernst Stavro Blofeld without the (by now) dated dress sense, the cat and the highly unlikely link between the villain and the hero from decades ago?

 

 

I've said before that I find SP somewhat flaccid and lazy, and the characterization of Blofeld, either in script or director/actor interpretation, is a prime example. The cat and the nehru jacket straddle the line between fan in-joke/homage and spoof, but the "big reveal" of the scar, well after the film has established Oberhauser as Blofeld, is a pointless, anti-climatic, "moment." 

 

It was Brozza who said that Austin Powers had pushed the series into a corner that had made it hard to manoeuver, and yet a decade later, the series resurrected its source material's major villain by evoking the very character that had so effectively sent up the series itself.

 

Sure, for fans, we see Waltz and link him instantly to Pleasance; for the average movie-goer, the association is with a comedy spoof, not the villain from a middling, one-of-many, Bond films from 50 years ago. "Uh, isn't that the one with the volcano?"

 

Blofeld in SP? A mis-imagined recharacterization, a misuse of a very good actor, and a missed opportunity for the series. That said, I guess it's an homage to the series' consistently underwhelming portrayal of the character.

 

 

Agreed Plankattack.

Edited by New Digs, 06 January 2016 - 07:52 PM.

[David_M]

 

 

I'm in agreement. I don't think Craig's personal feelings were reflected in his recent performance, but more of how Bond's behaviour was to be witnessed in this instalment. Even his scenes with Blofeld where he is face to face with such a revelation from his childhood, he is nonchalant. Whereas previously we have seen more of a reaction from Craig's Bond, usually driven by his pain or anger, but this time round we saw him with more control.

 

I don't know, I never found Craig's Bond to show much emotion one way or the other.  Which is not to call him "wooden" or "flat," mind you, but there seems to be a concerted effort on his part to show more with less, like he's thinking, "Okay, how would I react to this?  But I'm Bond here, so it needs to be played down, 'cause he's cool. A little less...a little less..."  If anything, his Bond reminds me of Nimoy's Spock; we know what he must be feeling because we're watching closely, but it's like, "Wow, did you see that momentary nostril flare?  He's really ticked off now!"

 

On the other hand, I really liked that he finally seemed at ease in the role this time out.  Plus for whatever reason, I think he looked better in this one than any of his others, and much younger than he did in SF.

 

 

 

 

If we can accept a new interpretation of M, Q and Moneypenny, why not allow a Double Oscar winner to recreate Ernst Stavro Blofeld without the (by now) dated dress sense, the cat and the highly unlikely link between the villain and the hero from decades ago? 

 

And don't forget Bond himself.  I don't think it'd be unfair to say Craig's Bond is the most complete re-imagining of the character we've had since 1962, so it's pretty weird that after taking nearly 10 years to rebuild 007 from the ground up, they'd throw out a new Blofeld with a cursory, "Oh, uh, you know Blofeld: He's got a scar, a Nehru jacket and a white cat."  Every one of those things was invented for the movies, anyway, so why not build their own Blofeld instead of taking shortcuts to a prefabbed version?

 

BTW, I thought it was silly when he told Bond his new name as if it would mean something, when the only way it would mean anything to Bond is if he'd watched the old movies.  All that way missing was for him to turn to the camera and say, "Dum-Dum-DUMMM!"

 

My wife had an interesting observation as a non-fan who hadn't followed any of the pre-release hype.  She asked why they spent all that time with Oberhauser/Blofeld in shadow at the SPECTRE meeting.  "Was it supposed to mean something when we finally saw him?"  I had a hard time answering that question. No, we weren't supposed to know him, as we'd never seen him before.  Bond was supposed to know him, but we only know that from dialog later in the film.  At this point we've never seen Oberhauser, so logically it can't mean a thing to us.  I think she's right that the "reveal" would have carried more impact (or at least SOME impact) if we'd seen Oberhauser already and knew his connection to Bond.  It's a strange moment.

[Guy Haines]

As much as we debate how Bond knew who Blofeld really was in SPECTRE, and how it was the hook that led him to the villain, we still have no answer to this - how did the late M have the information to put him on the trail in the first place? "If anything happens to me, find Marco Sciarra, kill him. And don't forget the funeral." Why? For me that was the one really lazy plot device because Bond puts his career on the line and comes close to being dismissed after the Mexico incident on the basis of a video clip from someone 007 cannot possibly take orders from anymore, for obvious reasons. We never find out why the late M wanted Bond to target Sciarra - unless the answer is being saved for the next movie, I suppose!

[tdalton]

Agreed. But IMO Seydoux closely followed.

 

As far as I'm concerned, Seydoux makes SPECTRE what it is.  I can't see myself getting nearly as much enjoyment out of the film as I did if she hadn't been cast as Swann. 

[Professor Pi]

As much as we debate how Bond knew who Blofeld really was in SPECTRE, and how it was the hook that led him to the villain, we still have no answer to this - how did the late M have the information to put him on the trail in the first place? "If anything happens to me, find Marco Sciarra, kill him. And don't forget the funeral." Why? For me that was the one really lazy plot device because Bond puts his career on the line and comes close to being dismissed after the Mexico incident on the basis of a video clip from someone 007 cannot possibly take orders from anymore, for obvious reasons. We never find out why the late M wanted Bond to target Sciarra - unless the answer is being saved for the next movie, I suppose!

 

Someone on this forum suggested that Donna Lucia had contacted M.  If that were the case, it would have been interesting for her to want Bond to kill Sciara so that she could be with "Oberhauser."  Opportunity missed.

[plankattack]

My wife had an interesting observation as a non-fan who hadn't followed any of the pre-release hype.  She asked why they spent all that time with Oberhauser/Blofeld in shadow at the SPECTRE meeting.  "Was it supposed to mean something when we finally saw him?"  I had a hard time answering that question. No, we weren't supposed to know him, as we'd never seen him before.  Bond was supposed to know him, but we only know that from dialog later in the film.  At this point we've never seen Oberhauser, so logically it can't mean a thing to us.  I think she's right that the "reveal" would have carried more impact (or at least SOME impact) if we'd seen Oberhauser already and knew his connection to Bond.  It's a strange moment.

Great point. To get all meta......looking at the story within its own reality, or looking at it from the outside as a piece of narrative celluloid fiction, the Blofeld reintroduction doesn't really work.

The notion that the super villain is linked to Bond's past is underplayed to the extreme, leaving it with little dramatic impact. It only works at all because the audience presume it's Blofeld. But then the filmmakers went through the entirely false charade of continually claiming that "my character is called Oberhauser" which we heard ad nauseum. Us fans were not fooled, and non-fans (such as David M's missus) were left non-plussed. A whole lot of effort for nothing.

Surely announcing at the outset that "we're proud to have Christoph Waltz play Bond nemesis Blofeld in the role of a lifetime" etc etc would have been the way to go. Then fans and non-fans alike can play the "anticipation game." As it is, on either level, we're left with an underwhelming hole in what should be the crux of the story. Heck, there's more mystery, more menace, more question, about Hinx!

I know that you're all tired of me making this comparison but when Ledger was Joker in The Dark Knight, there was no such, how should I put it, fussing around. Either by the filmmakers, or by the script. Ledger plays the Joker, by the way, he's incredible in the role. The lights go out, you watch the film, and then later at the pub its: and oh by-the-way, the villain is unbelievable, and the guy playing him was fantastic.

Casting Oscar-winning Waltz (especially after Bardem's turn as the villain in SF) was a coup for the series. But not allowing him to then paint on a blank canvas and create his Blofeld for this reboot generation, is negligence of the highest order. Shadowy rooms and scars completely removed the room for any kind of performance beyond a Christmas pantomime villain.

According to the tabloids, and this thread's title, Christopher Waltz could return.BUT... To my mind it should read: Waltz could return. WHY?

Botched-feld! would be my tabloid headline........

[tdalton]

I remember sitting in the theater as the movie headed to the Morocco sequence, thinking that maybe everything I'd heard had been a joke, that Waltz wasn't really Blofeld and that he was simply going to be Oberhauser after all.  I figured, they can't possibly cast an Oscar-winning actor to play Blofeld and only have him be in one scene of the film heading into the climax.  

 

And then the darn cat showed up.  So much for that.

[plankattack]

I remember sitting in the theater as the movie headed to the Morocco sequence, thinking that maybe everything I'd heard had been a joke, that Waltz wasn't really Blofeld and that he was simply going to be Oberhauser after all.  I figured, they can't possibly cast an Oscar-winning actor to play Blofeld and only have him be in one scene of the film heading into the climax.  
 
And then the darn cat showed up.  So much for that.

This sums up my frustration at SP. The series has definitely had some films that IMHO are worse. But all they did was show up and leave. SP takes SPECTRE, Blofeld, cornerstones of the entire Bond (can't believe I'm going to use this word!!!) universe, and.....reduces them to caricature with all the adeptness of amateur sleight-of-hand.

EON waited how many years? 40? For the rights to all things Blofeld, and then this is how it's handled? I said in my very original post after seeing the film that Blofeld's presence is the most damaging thing to the plot. Remove Blofeld and you're left with a standard Bond outing that we all would have had our own opinions on. For me, forcing Blofeld in undermined what already existed, but more heinously, underserved what could, should, have been a triumphant, almost cathartic, moment in the series history.

As was said, that darned cat.......

[tdalton]

While I enjoy the film on some levels, the film could have been majorly benefited by someone at EON (or Sony or MGM) saying at some point along the way: Stop!  It's clear that this was a story that just wasn't working, as it attempts to try to be too many things at once.  

 

I'm also not convinced that Purvis and Wade made SPECTRE better.  I haven't read the leaked information, but I've read enough posts on other forums to get a decent idea of what Logan was up to.  His version of events, at least in so much as I have read, sounded fairly interesting.  Not sure about all of it, but at least there were nuggets there worth pursuing.  The final script, after P&W and Butterworth got their hands on it, tries to be everything to everyone and, when it's all said and done, ends up not being much of anything.  SPECTRE is a film that is saved by certain moments and by certain performances.  It's a case of the parts being greater than their sum.

[plankattack]

Not a huge proponent of speculation masquerading as fact, but that's what you do on a message board so here goes....

2012 - Sometime around SF's release, Logan pitches his idea to EON and is commissioned to go ahead
2013 - Rumors of Chiewetel Ejiofer's involvement on-line and on these here boards as primary character
2013 - EON regain rights to Blofeld, Spectre etc
2014 - Logan out, P & W & Butterworth in. Ejiofer rumors die out. Speculation that a new part is offered to Ejiofer. Not interested, role in surviving form ends up with Andrew Scott
2014-15 Sony leak, internet abounds in "inside info", Weitz cast as "my character is named Olberhauser", production begins

What's fact and what's not, well, have at it and tell me what you come up with. But what's not open to question is that Logan pitched EON around SF's release with his idea that was given the go-ahead. Remember, P & W had indicated at around the same time that they were done with Bond. The official announcement of the deal with McClory wasn't made until November of 2013.

Now I will admit, only legal experts around here could really give us a sense of how long it takes those deals to go down, but I can't believe that nearly eleven months prior could EON be sure that they would reacquire them. Definitely not to the extent where they would allow the only scriptwriter under contract to go ahead and plan a story around those characters. Similar to the stories of Mankiewicz and Maibaum creating two separate stories that were merged to form TMWTGG, I think P & W were hired, not necessarily to rewrite Logan, but to marry the recently reacquired characters with what existed. I speculate that Butterworth was brought in last by the director to Mendes-ize the whole thing with a sense of profundity and people staring out of windows.

But that's just me.....

[SecretAgentFan]

EON will definitely have pursued many possibilities - but with an eye of getting Blofeld back.

 

I´m speculating that it was Mendes who wanted the personal connection between Bond and Blofeld - and that´s what caused problems with the story in every incarnation.

 

It would have sufficed to have Madeleine have a personal connection to Blofeld via her father.  They still could have tied Blofeld´s schemes together with the previous films in the Craig era - but the foster brother-idea never really worked out and burdoned the film.  IMHO.

[Guy Haines]

At an early stage of writing the script, perhaps the writers and whoever else was involved - producers, director, Daniel Craig - could have agreed to (1) drop the whole Bond/Oberhauser business as it stood and (2) let Blofeld be Blofeld - not an assumed name of someone else - and let whoever was cast flesh out a new interpretation of the role. And a villain of such iconic standing in the Bond series - you're going to cast someone well qualified, especially following Javier Bardem.

It would have avoided nearly twelve months pointless speculation - not least by us here on this site - as Christoph Waltz went from interview to interview asserting that "I am Oberhauser!" when in the end he was both Oberhauser and Blofeld, but had to wear the props and have the white cat on hand to remind us!

As for the link from Bond to Blofeld - as secretagentfan suggests, it ought to have been through Mr White and his daughter Madeleine. The video from M - I think there should have been in scene in which, if you like, we see the rest of it, and I would have included the following; White, in hiding and fearing for his life, asks for M's help. In return for MI6 removing SPECTRE's then top assassin, Sciara, he will spill the beans about SPECTRE and name the head man and the likely location. Or rather, point the way, via Sciarra's wife, who must also be protected, along with someone else - we deliberately leave that a mystery so that Bond eventually discovers White is referring to his daughter.

Bond could still meet up with Lucia, she could still point him in the direction of that secret meeting, but the bit when Blofeld muses on what went wrong in Mexico - it would be "Good evening Mr Bond - I've been expecting you" or similar - a definite nod in the direction of the classic era there! ;-)

A link between Bond and Blofeld would have been established but the puppet master would have been not Oberhauser/Blofeld claiming he was "the author of all your pain" but White using Bond and MI6 to protect himself and his daughter (and for whatever reason, Lucia - maybe we learn that Wnite once had a liason with her too!)

As for the moment when Bond finally meets Blofeld - we don't have to waste screen time on family issues and petty jealousies from teen years. Instead Bond learns from "Number One" who his enemy has been all along, what SPECTRE is all about and even - in a similar way to the grand speech Blofeld makes in the book You Only Live Twice - an excusing of his previous crimes, and this one.

The "personal issues" - the "Skyfall revisited" stuff could still have been included - but through Bond's growing relationship with Madeleine, in a similar way to the relationship with Tracy in OHMSS. He was already having doubts during Skyfall. Now he meets someone who is a match for him in many ways. Does he really want to go on doing what he does? More exploration of that area rather than investigating Bond's "childhood issues" would have made more sense, perhaps?