462 replies to this topic

[Dustin]

But the fact remains: Bond and Oberhauser have a backstory, yet none of that backstory has real relevance to the events we're shown. Also, they don't seem to have an emotional relationship; Bond is surprised to see Oberhauser alive, but not affected by it, he just carries on with his quest. Oberhauser enjoys torturing the hell out of Bond, but he would have done so even if they had just met for the first time.

So why using the backstory at all? It's really wasted. Oberhauser should not have killed his own father, he should have been responsible for the death of Bond's parents.

[Professor Pi]

That whole link doesn't add much to the story.  It's almost as if Oberhauser was in the original script as his own villain, and then they got the rights to SPECTRE and tried to make him Blofeld after the fact.  The movie works fine without that connection.  Making him Guy Haines might have worked too.

[Silva25]

It feels to me like they not only wanted to try and connect all of the films together, but also do more of the "ghosts of Bond's past" like they did in Skyfall.  And they just picked a REALLY poor way to do both of those things.

[Twingolot]

I really don't like Blofeld calling Bond "James" and not "Mr Bond" or "007". Bond also has to call him "Blofeld", not "Ernst".

[stromberg]

But the fact remains: Bond and Oberhauser have a backstory, yet none of that backstory has real relevance to the events we're shown. Also, they don't seem to have an emotional relationship; Bond is surprised to see Oberhauser alive, but not affected by it, he just carries on with his quest. Oberhauser enjoys torturing the hell out of Bond, but he would have done so even if they had just met for the first time.

So why using the backstory at all? It's really wasted. Oberhauser should not have killed his own father, he should have been responsible for the death of Bond's parents.

 

There's a simple reason for the backstory: Bonds knowledge of Oberhauser's true identity is the key to everything. Without it, the story would have developped in a completely different way. Suddenly, Bond had a name of which he knew that it was not a cover name (unlike the Blofeld name), he was thus able to track him down and make the connection to his previous adversaries.

 

Without the connection, it wouldn't have been "Welcome James, it's been a long time." but "Good evening Mr Bond, we meet at last." and Bond wouldn't have known much more than before, maybe not even the Blofeld name because he was discovered and had to run. Also, he had something solid for his "home team" with which he was able to convince them to trust him and stay on his side.

[Dustin]

If Bond actually calls him Blofeld he accepts the guy's delusion and plays along. NEVER play along with the nutjobs...

[sharpshooter]

I really don't like Blofeld calling Bond "James" and not "Mr Bond" or "007". Bond also has to call him "Blofeld", not "Ernst".

I think that's the Colonel Sun element of the film. The Colonel also referred to 007 as James, and dialogue is directly lifted from the book for the torture scene. They could've also used the Colonel's comments about genital torture being predictable, mocking Le Chiffre, but alas. 

[Professor Pi]

I've always wondered why the writers had Brosnan's Bond refer to Carver as Elliot in Tomorrow Never Dies.  Curious that Mr. White always calls Craig "Mr. Bond" to his last day.  Nice acknowledgement to the last line of Casino Royale, actually.

[Walecs]

I really don't like Blofeld calling Bond "James" and not "Mr Bond" or "007". Bond also has to call him "Blofeld", not "Ernst".

 

They were forster brothers, it makes totally sense that they call each other "James" and "Ernst".

 

Although, the "forster brothers" thing was a bad idea since the beginning, so...

[Mr_Wint]

Since it was so hard to grow up with Bond and always be second, Blofeld created SPECTRE and made himself #1.

[AMC Hornet]

It appears Bond never gave Franz another thought after parting 30-odd years ago.

 

I don't get  the impression that Oberhauser was obsessed with Bond all that time. He became kingpin, and when 007 became involved in his plans - as he said - that's when he set about enjoying a game of cat-and-mouse with him.

[DaveBond21]

That whole link doesn't add much to the story.  It's almost as if Oberhauser was in the original script as his own villain, and then they got the rights to SPECTRE and tried to make him Blofeld after the fact.  The movie works fine without that connection.  Making him Guy Haines might have worked too.

 

This is an interesting point, Professor, because yes, they got the rights to the name after they had the plot idea, so they don't necessarily have a grand plan for Blofeld over the next few films, at least at this stage.

 

And just because they have a rebooted Blofeld, doesn't mean they will reboot anything else - characters or story. Indeed, as Sam Mendes said, this is a new version of Blofeld, and they can do what they want with him. I think they will come up with brand new storylines.

 

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

[Guy Haines]

But the fact remains: Bond and Oberhauser have a backstory, yet none of that backstory has real relevance to the events we're shown. Also, they don't seem to have an emotional relationship; Bond is surprised to see Oberhauser alive, but not affected by it, he just carries on with his quest. Oberhauser enjoys torturing the hell out of Bond, but he would have done so even if they had just met for the first time.
So why using the backstory at all? It's really wasted. Oberhauser should not have killed his own father, he should have been responsible for the death of Bond's parents.

 
There's a simple reason for the backstory: Bonds knowledge of Oberhauser's true identity is the key to everything. Without it, the story would have developped in a completely different way. Suddenly, Bond had a name of which he knew that it was not a cover name (unlike the Blofeld name), he was thus able to track him down and make the connection to his previous adversaries.
 
Without the connection, it wouldn't have been "Welcome James, it's been a long time." but "Good evening Mr Bond, we meet at last." and Bond wouldn't have known much more than before, maybe not even the Blofeld name because he was discovered and had to run. Also, he had something solid for his "home team" with which he was able to convince them to trust him and stay on his side.

Good point although Oberhauser didn't have to reveal himself or his knowledge that Bond had inflitrated the SPECTRE meeting (Except, of course that being a typical Bond villain he'd be confident that his goons would detain Bond at that point - clearly Oberhauser knew about Bond's interfering with SPECTRE, but hadn't seen too many Bond films! If he had he'd know that 007 ALWAYS escapes from these situations! ;-) )

From the board meeting on it's a game of cat and mouse - apt that a mouse appears in a significant scene later on -with Bond having Oberhauser as the link (and of course the SPECTRE ring from Sciarra which links ESB to other villains) From then on its only a matter of time until Bond tracks ESB down.

[Dustin]

But the fact remains: Bond and Oberhauser have a backstory, yet none of that backstory has real relevance to the events we're shown. Also, they don't seem to have an emotional relationship; Bond is surprised to see Oberhauser alive, but not affected by it, he just carries on with his quest. Oberhauser enjoys torturing the hell out of Bond, but he would have done so even if they had just met for the first time.

So why using the backstory at all? It's really wasted. Oberhauser should not have killed his own father, he should have been responsible for the death of Bond's parents.

There's a simple reason for the backstory: Bonds knowledge of Oberhauser's true identity is the key to everything. Without it, the story would have developped in a completely different way. Suddenly, Bond had a name of which he knew that it was not a cover name (unlike the Blofeld name), he was thus able to track him down and make the connection to his previous adversaries.

Without the connection, it wouldn't have been "Welcome James, it's been a long time." but "Good evening Mr Bond, we meet at last." and Bond wouldn't have known much more than before, maybe not even the Blofeld name because he was discovered and had to run. Also, he had something solid for his "home team" with which he was able to convince them to trust him and stay on his side.

I see this only now, good point indeed. There is a different balance to it since they share history, the 'Good evening, Mr Bond...' would have been the familiar way in which they meet.

[glidrose]

I don't know if anybody's raised this point in this particular thread, but the whole problem with the backstory is that it trashes Fleming and the original timeline. If you're not familiar with the earlier films or books, then you don't care about Blofeld and probably don't know who he is. If you are familiar with the earlier books and films then you can't help but regard this idiotic backstory as a dumb idea and a slap in the face.

I once said that the whole point of Blofeld is that he is the man who either killed or would kill Bond's wife. Without that, bringing him back - worse, updating him - makes no sense.

With all due respect to Dustin, the idea that Bloferhauser - or anybody - should have killed Bond's parents would have been an even worse idea. I regard John Pearson's version as canon and I don't think anybody can improve on it.

I believe our own TDalton said in another thread that this whole reboot has been misconceived from day one. And it just keeps getting worse.

[Dustin]

Actually - strangely perhaps - this is the same problem that I have with Pearson, he gives Bond a backstory - and a brother - that both don't tally with Fleming. He hints at a troubled marriage of Bond's parents and subsequent 'mommy issues' of the young James and all of that is gripping and dramatic stuff, right to the moment James kills his 'patroness' and survives this inadvertently. But I regard none of it as canon, to me it's simply meta-fiction that uses its own freedom and ideas.

The reboot now tries to reimagine the character and likewise does so with certain artistic freedoms - but the difference is the character is still the same. Try as I might, I didn't get that feeling from Pearson's book. And actually that wasn't exactly Pearson's aim either - though you're certainly welcome if you read it as a Bond novel. What Pearson wrote was a book about the 'real' James Bond (whose real name could be Anatol Humblepie for all we know), the not overly close friend of one Ian Fleming, who later set out, on direct orders of the SIS, to write heavily romanticised versions of this agent's exploits for reasons of disinformation. Pearson's premise is that Fleming wrote fiction while he, Pearson, wrote a reportage - non-fiction.

As for this reboot, of course it's not everybody's cup of tea, especially when you chose to ignore it; a decision that is now no longer so easy. Well, personally I felt it wasn't the first and in all likelihood will not be the last. To me it's not really worse than Lazenby meeting Blofeld, disguised with only a pair of spectacles. In time we all will get over it, I trust.

[FlemingBond]

that's exactly how i feel glidrose. They bring back Blofeld, but give him a completely different backstory. Which mean's he's really Blofeld in name only. 

[glidrose]

Actually - strangely perhaps - this is the same problem that I have with Pearson, he gives Bond a backstory - and a brother - that both don't tally with Fleming.

Not to suggest that everything Pearson did was perfect. The older brother, having Bond born in Germany and making MR and Hugo Drax fiction were dumb ideas. Despite this, I have no problem treating this as a real Bond novel, certainly more than the Gardner/Benson/Deaver books.

[Revelator]

that's exactly how i feel glidrose. They bring back Blofeld, but give him a completely different backstory. Which mean's he's really Blofeld in name only. 

 

Oh, it's even worse than that--they gave Blofeld a completely different (and completely stupid) backstory, yet they also gave him YOLT Blofeld's props (the white cat, Nehru jacket, & scarred eye). So he's Blofeld in props only! I was in favor of resurrecting Blofeld, but only if the Dr. Evil camp was left behind. The filmmakers decided that was the one element they'd retain!

Edited by Revelator, 20 November 2015 - 04:11 AM.

[Dustin]

that's exactly how i feel glidrose. They bring back Blofeld, but give him a completely different backstory. Which mean's he's really Blofeld in name only.

Oh, it's even worse than that--they gave Blofeld a completely different (and completely stupid) backstory, yet they also gave him YOLT Blofeld's props (the white cat, Nehru jacket, & scarred eye). So he's Blofeld in props only! I was in favor of resurrecting Blofeld, but only if the Dr. Evil camp was left behind. The filmmakers decided that was the one element they'd retain!

Particularly baffling since Waltz didn't need such crutches for his part, there was no reason to tie him down with the stuff.

[SecretAgentFan]

I guess that´s the danger zone they always have to move around: how much "classical" elements does the audience want to see, how much can they depart from that?

 

QOS moved away from those classical elements, SKYFALL used them a lot - bingo!  

 

Bringing back Blofeld without at least referencing the classical elements of the character would have certainly angered lots of people.  The new idea to let him have personal ties to Bond, obviously, does not sit well with everybody either.

 

Wel, they can´t win them all.

[Dustin]

I suppose it was done for much the same reasons the DB5 turns up again and again now, by now people just expect it. But there was a time when the series used to create this iconography instead of merely recycle it. The problem with much of the car chase was in fact that we have seen it before and could even guess the moves from a certain point onwards. This needlessly limits the production where it should strive for its own original ways.

[sharpshooter]

I don't think Blofeld's nehru jacket is any different to Bond having his tuxedo. I don't see these things restricting an actor's performance, either.

[Dustin]

The jacket is the least of the problems - though it's by now a caricature and about as helpful as if he had been wearing a black Stetson and rowels. The question with these things should be 'is it necessary?', not 'how much of it can we include?'

In that context a scene or two with Bloferhauser alone or in private with a companion would have been helpful. I understand how many liked the return of his signatory jacket-cat-and-scar to the Craig era. But the whole setup lacks depth and character for me.

[sharpshooter]

I can only speak for myself, but I wasn't embarrassed about any of the trademark Blofeld iconography in SPECTRE - facial scarring, cat or jacket. Therefore I don't see them as problems. I actually would've been more disappointed if they shunned these elements completely. I think it takes more courage to bring back the cat, for example, in the face of potential public ridicule. And I haven't seen people ridiculing Blofeld's cat, scar or jacket, to be honest. The focal point has been his backstory with Bond. 

[Dustin]

No, I don't think Waltz was ridiculed for it either. But that is more due to the quality of Waltz' acting than to the actual accessories. The point is, Waltz wouldn't have needed any of the gimmicks and would have been just as good.

[Revelator]

I don't think Blofeld's nehru jacket is any different to Bond having his tuxedo. I don't see these things restricting an actor's performance, either.

Men still wear tuxedos, but no one wears Nehru jackets, unless they're dressing as Dr. Evil for Halloween. It's an outdated piece of clothing and only there to remind fans of Blofeld's campiest side. It's as if Craig's Bond decided to wear a safari suit because Roger Moore did.

As for the scar and white cat, they're nothing but pointless fanboy shoutouts that add nothing to what's supposed to be a 21st century reimagining of Blofeld. At their best, the Bond films stand on their own, rather than quoting themselves.

[Guy Haines]

that's exactly how i feel glidrose. They bring back Blofeld, but give him a completely different backstory. Which mean's he's really Blofeld in name only.

Oh, it's even worse than that--they gave Blofeld a completely different (and completely stupid) backstory, yet they also gave him YOLT Blofeld's props (the white cat, Nehru jacket, & scarred eye). So he's Blofeld in props only! I was in favor of resurrecting Blofeld, but only if the Dr. Evil camp was left behind. The filmmakers decided that was the one element they'd retain!

Is it a Nehru jacket? It looks more like the kind of Austrian jacket worn by Telly Savalas' Blofeld in OHMSS. Which would fit in with Oberhauser's native background.

Actually, the main talking point about Blofeld's dress sense, in the mainstream media at least, appears to be that in his Moroccan HQ Blofeld doesn't wear socks! ;-)

[Dustin]

Is it a Nehru jacket? It looks more like the kind of Austrian jacket worn by Telly Savalas' Blofeld in OHMSS. Which would fit in with Oberhauser's native background.

Yes, it's a Nehru jacket - mark the mandarin collar.

Savalas didn't in fact wear any Austrian/Tirolian/Bavarian style in OHMSS. What he had was a hip length ensemble with no collar if memory serves. This actually was kind of the style that season, Bond's brown golf dress likewise had no collar - as did his cardigan, though this was chosen for its scholarly air, not for its fashion. Many of the costumes of the cast featured similarly absent or very low collars.

[byline]

Savalas didn't in fact wear any Austrian/Tirolian/Bavarian style in OHMSS. What he had was a hip length ensemble with no collar if memory serves.

Looks to me like Savalas' jacket does have a stand-up collar: