Did Franz have any real motivations? (SPOILERS)

Absolutely_Cart

So, Franz, for some reason is angry at Bond. He could be murdering scores of innocent children instead but he's instead on a vendetta to get Bond. Silva's vendetta had personal motivations against M, but he was also humiliating and terrorizing Britain as a whole (more believable). Franz is the head of the world's most evil organization and his big rein of terror is a silly psuedo-psychological torture scene which wouldn't be out of place in Die Another Day.

Out of a 1-in-a-million-chance, the world's most dependable hero and the world's most evil villain were foster brothers (Yes, they actually copied Austin Powers in Goldmember). Blofeld's evil plan went from wanting to blow up the world, to wanting to poison all plants, to wanting to make his estranged foster-brother miserable.

His big evil plan was to put Bond and his girlfriend (Madeline) in an exploding building (which he spent extensive time decorating with pictures of people Bond killed). He, of course, made it escapable, so that Bond wouldn't die - he would just be really upset he lost another woman.

And, of course, Franz was (in hindsight) responsible for everything in the past 3 Bond films (because, yeah, it sounds cool!).

He had a terrorist financier set up a high stakes poker game and held Vesper for ransom just to piss off Bond.
He had an evil magnate cause a drought in Bolivia just to piss off Bond.
He let a psycho former-00 agent on the loose, had MI6 bombed and M killed just to piss off Bond.

If Franz had this vendetta for this long, why wait 9 years to actually try to kill Bond?

Spectreville

I don't think the film would have lost anything if they dropped the whole Oberhauser sub plot and just established that Waltz was Blofeld from the start, and had no personal connection to Bond.

It doesn't feel like they did anything with the estranged foster-brother story and it doesn't explain why someone would start an international terrorist organisation.

I think they should either have explained Blofeld's backstory logically (as in Thunderball novel) or not explain it at all, and make him more ambiguous.

Ornithologist

Spectreville wrote:

I don't think the film would have lost anything if they dropped the whole Oberhauser sub plot and just established that Waltz was Blofeld from the start, and had no personal connection to Bond.

Now with this I agree! But I don't recall anyone say Blofeld did it all because of Bond (which would indeed be ridiculous). What if he just became a criminal (and a very succesful one at that) for all the "normal" reasons people usually choose that career, and somewhere along the way he discovered that a guy who once lived with the same foster parents (not his brother at all, actually) was working against him on the Mi6. This makes the story more personal, and arguably unnecessarily so.

But Blofeld's plan was never "to piss off Bond". It was to create a global surveillance network in the hands of terrorists, which would allow them to control / blackmail any government in the world. To me if that doesn't qualify as a modern-day world domination plan, I don't know what does.

Spectreville

Ornithologist wrote:

But Blofeld's plan was never "to piss off Bond". It was to create a global surveillance network in the hands of terrorists, which would allow them to control / blackmail any government in the world. To me if that doesn't qualify as a modern-day world domination plan, I don't know what does.

Absolutely. His plan was sinister and believable, very much the 21st century equivalent of world domination. Just like the opening titles with the octopus tentacles wrapping around everything.

Thunderpussy

In the novels Blofeld got his start by running double agents, so being able to
sell infomation to various countries, this was the base of his power which he
used as the fondations for spectre.
As Spectreville points out, with the new film, the writers have ( only my opinion)
Simply updated the gathering of infomation idea for the modern age.

Absolutely_Cart

Spectreville wrote:

I don't think the film would have lost anything if they dropped the whole Oberhauser sub plot and just established that Waltz was Blofeld from the start, and had no personal connection to Bond.

It doesn't feel like they did anything with the estranged foster-brother story and it doesn't explain why someone would start an international terrorist organisation.

I think they should either have explained Blofeld's backstory logically (as in Thunderball novel) or not explain it at all, and make him more ambiguous.

During the script leaks, it was basically said that they needed to revise this plot because the Franz/Blofeld/brother thing wasn't a surprise at all. From what I saw, they did some revisions, but that wasn't enough. It needed an overhaul.

I agree. As I said in my other thread, if they decided not to name this movie Spectre, it may have been a surprise. Since, like you said, the foster-brother story wasn't explored after the first hour, it wasn't necessary.

Perhaps we could've had a great movie, if we just established he was Blofeld and save about an hour of learning what we already know.

Gassy Man

While I think the foster brother connection is ludicrous and simply a lame attempt to shoehorn into the plot some unnecessary personal connection, I also think it's overstating to say that Blofeld created everything as revenge on Bond. It's obvious he's supposed to be a sociopath who commits patricide at an early age, and thus shows his murderous ways. If we're to believe that this Blofeld is a supergenius, then getting Bond is an adjunct to his plans and not the focus. The fact that his own people are terrified of Blofeld suggests he is someone who thinks in great dimensions, maliciously. He is the Octopus with many tentacles.

MilleniumForce

I think the foster brother plot was just a reason to link SPECTRE with the previous movies, and so it made sense why they were involved (should have done it differently, maybe having Quantum disperse and then re formed and expanded into SPECTRE).

Absolutely_Cart

They didn't need to be linked.

It's sort of like making a WWII movie about Hitler starting the Holocaust with intent to torment the guy who rejected him from art school.

Loeffelholz

Gassy Man wrote:

While I think the foster brother connection is ludicrous and simply a lame attempt to shoehorn into the plot some unnecessary personal connection, I also think it's overstating to say that Blofeld created everything as revenge on Bond. It's obvious he's supposed to be a sociopath who commits patricide at an early age, and thus shows his murderous ways. If we're to believe that this Blofeld is a supergenius, then getting Bond is an adjunct to his plans and not the focus. The fact that his own people are terrified of Blofeld suggests he is someone who thinks in great dimensions, maliciously. He is the Octopus with many tentacles.

I agree that it was unnecessary to make ESB Bond's jilted foster brother...but I can suspend my disbelief enough to allow for him to punish Bond (as a hobby, LOL) as their careers 'intersected' and Bond caused him grief by dismantling some of his operations. As I said elsewhere, going forward I think Eon would be best advised to let them settle into their natural adversarial roles without revisiting the dysfunctional foster family angle...but the personal hatred Blofeld has for Bond is certainly a natural 'spice' for whatever they decide to concoct.

Gassy Man

Loeffelholz wrote:

Gassy Man wrote:

While I think the foster brother connection is ludicrous and simply a lame attempt to shoehorn into the plot some unnecessary personal connection, I also think it's overstating to say that Blofeld created everything as revenge on Bond. It's obvious he's supposed to be a sociopath who commits patricide at an early age, and thus shows his murderous ways. If we're to believe that this Blofeld is a supergenius, then getting Bond is an adjunct to his plans and not the focus. The fact that his own people are terrified of Blofeld suggests he is someone who thinks in great dimensions, maliciously. He is the Octopus with many tentacles.

I agree that it was unnecessary to make ESB Bond's jilted foster brother...but I can suspend my disbelief enough to allow for him to punish Bond (as a hobby, LOL) as their careers 'intersected' and Bond caused him grief by dismantling some of his operations. As I said elsewhere, going forward I think Eon would be best advised to let them settle into their natural adversarial roles without revisiting the dysfunctional foster family angle...but the personal hatred Blofeld has for Bond is certainly a natural 'spice' for whatever they decide to concoct.

The thing is, though, it's another dodge and hustle. We're simply told they grew up together and Blofeld is a sociopath with a vendetta. Not even when they finally come face to face do they acknowledge anything other than a casual understanding of this situation. If they'd taken the time to actually do something on screen with it, silly as the concept itself could be, I might have see something relevant, but instead, it's another expository factoid that dramatically fizzles. From a story-telling point of view, the intense hatred for Bond is better set up by the ending, where Bond scars and foils his plans.

Loeffelholz

Gassy Man wrote:

Loeffelholz wrote:

Gassy Man wrote:

While I think the foster brother connection is ludicrous and simply a lame attempt to shoehorn into the plot some unnecessary personal connection, I also think it's overstating to say that Blofeld created everything as revenge on Bond. It's obvious he's supposed to be a sociopath who commits patricide at an early age, and thus shows his murderous ways. If we're to believe that this Blofeld is a supergenius, then getting Bond is an adjunct to his plans and not the focus. The fact that his own people are terrified of Blofeld suggests he is someone who thinks in great dimensions, maliciously. He is the Octopus with many tentacles.

I agree that it was unnecessary to make ESB Bond's jilted foster brother...but I can suspend my disbelief enough to allow for him to punish Bond (as a hobby, LOL) as their careers 'intersected' and Bond caused him grief by dismantling some of his operations. As I said elsewhere, going forward I think Eon would be best advised to let them settle into their natural adversarial roles without revisiting the dysfunctional foster family angle...but the personal hatred Blofeld has for Bond is certainly a natural 'spice' for whatever they decide to concoct.

The thing is, though, it's another dodge and hustle. We're simply told they grew up together and Blofeld is a sociopath with a vendetta. Not even when they finally come face to face do they acknowledge anything other than a casual understanding of this situation. If they'd taken the time to actually do something on screen with it, silly as the concept itself could be, I might have see something relevant, but instead, it's another expository factoid that dramatically fizzles. From a story-telling point of view, the intense hatred for Bond is better set up by the ending, where Bond scars and foils his plans.

I'll concede all of that, but I guess I just minded it less than you did The third act has pacing problems as it is, and whatever revisions were made to the script prior to shooting were clearly not sufficient. I think it would have been a different thing if it had devolved into more bitter recrimination than what we got. It works for me---not superbly, but adequately.

I will say that I would be absolutely delighted to see completely new names as writing credits for #25.

Matt S

Does anyone else think this thread is about Franz Sanchez when you see the title, and wonder what it is doing in the Spectre board? And then open it up to be disappointed that it's about the lesser Franz?

Loeffelholz

Matt S wrote:

Does anyone else think this thread is about Franz Sanchez when you see the title, and wonder what it is doing in the Spectre board? And then open it up to be disappointed that it's about the lesser Franz?

Ooh, that's rich ) I think this Franz is just getting started, though. He's already a step up by surviving his inaugural film!

Matt S

Loeffelholz wrote:

Matt S wrote:

Does anyone else think this thread is about Franz Sanchez when you see the title, and wonder what it is doing in the Spectre board? And then open it up to be disappointed that it's about the lesser Franz?

Ooh, that's rich ) I think this Franz is just getting started, though. He's already a step up by surviving his inaugural film!

Franz isn't just getting started, he's is finished. He died in an avalanche.

Loeffelholz

Matt S wrote:

Loeffelholz wrote:

Matt S wrote:

Does anyone else think this thread is about Franz Sanchez when you see the title, and wonder what it is doing in the Spectre board? And then open it up to be disappointed that it's about the lesser Franz?

Ooh, that's rich ) I think this Franz is just getting started, though. He's already a step up by surviving his inaugural film!

Franz isn't just getting started, he's is finished. He died in an avalanche.

...

Ah. Ok then.

Gassy Man

Loeffelholz wrote:

Gassy Man wrote:

Loeffelholz wrote:

I agree that it was unnecessary to make ESB Bond's jilted foster brother...but I can suspend my disbelief enough to allow for him to punish Bond (as a hobby, LOL) as their careers 'intersected' and Bond caused him grief by dismantling some of his operations. As I said elsewhere, going forward I think Eon would be best advised to let them settle into their natural adversarial roles without revisiting the dysfunctional foster family angle...but the personal hatred Blofeld has for Bond is certainly a natural 'spice' for whatever they decide to concoct.

The thing is, though, it's another dodge and hustle. We're simply told they grew up together and Blofeld is a sociopath with a vendetta. Not even when they finally come face to face do they acknowledge anything other than a casual understanding of this situation. If they'd taken the time to actually do something on screen with it, silly as the concept itself could be, I might have see something relevant, but instead, it's another expository factoid that dramatically fizzles. From a story-telling point of view, the intense hatred for Bond is better set up by the ending, where Bond scars and foils his plans.

I'll concede all of that, but I guess I just minded it less than you did The third act has pacing problems as it is, and whatever revisions were made to the script prior to shooting were clearly not sufficient. I think it would have been a different thing if it had devolved into more bitter recrimination than what we got. It works for me---not superbly, but adequately.

I will say that I would be absolutely delighted to see completely new names as writing credits for #25.

Absolutely! It's amazing that they've had the best cast and the most money in years to make Bond films, and they hire such mediocre talent to be writers.

Almost all the problems are typical of lesser writers and also endemic in modern filmmaking. They raise an idea but then don't explore it. They fall in love with the concept but then don't follow through. Modern audiences let them get away with it. For all the criticism of Spectre I've read, none of it has been on too much exposition and not enough drama. The same for Skyfall. Yet both films suffer from the same problem.

Compare this to Casino Royale. With the exception of giving the romance short shrift, it at least tried to show rather than tell. Even the "boring" scenes, like the actual card game. That's one of the reasons the film works so well. We're not told Bond is reckless -- we see scenes that show it. We're not told that Bond is fearless -- we see scenes that show it. Even the revelation that Bond is an orphan is revealed in a dramatic scene -- Bond being one-upped by Vesper. Casino Royale is memorable for its scenes.

But while Skyfall and Spectre have lots of spectacle, the scenes of Bond's past are absent. The closest we get is a photo of Bond with his foster father. Imagine if Bond's actual past was given as much attention as the PTS or the train fight -- in other words, dramatically recreated.

The third act stalls, in particular, not only because the scale is smaller -- a handful of people running around two buildings -- but because it spends a lot of time on undramatic action filler Bond running around corridors. Q typing on a laptop. These are easy shots to make, of course, which makes directing simpler. But what if just three minutes of all that were cut and instead, we got a brief actual scene from Bond's childhood? What if during the interrogation scene, Blofeld were later to query Bond not about Swann but about their childhood together, tied in to the earlier scene? Missed opportunities, but creating such requires work.

Loeffelholz

-{ Very frustrating for a writer, I can tell you. But it's worth noting that flashbacks aren't really employed by this franchise...GE's PTS is arguably one, but the next scene simply says "Nine years later." That sort of edict necessitates exposition via dialogue.

Gassy Man

I know, but then until now, the Bond films have primarily done what the best stories do -- keep the scenes moving forward in time so they don't have to circle back. But by deciding to introduce Bond's childhood into the story as a significant ingredient, they open the door to having to actually film things. That they use expository dialogue solves two problems: The writers don't actually have to write scenes, and the director doesn't have to cast actors and film them. This saves time and money. But it also leads to an inferior product.

It doesn't trouble the average moviegoer, particularly ones who are more interested in the idea than the drama, but it does those of us who believe in the more traditional expectations -- you know, as Chekhov said, if you're going to put a gun on the stage wall of a play, it had better be fired before the play ends. One thing that keeps classic Bonds better to me is this important philosophy. Imagine, for instance, if while Blofeld explained the fighting fish we didn't actually see them in combat (even if edited to get past the censors of the day). This is the equivalent, to me, of Silva's rat monologue, only I found the Blofeld scene interesting.

Matt S

Loeffelholz wrote:

-{ Very frustrating for a writer, I can tell you. But it's worth noting that flashbacks aren't really employed by this franchise...GE's PTS is arguably one, but the next scene simply says "Nine years later." That sort of edict necessitates exposition via dialogue.

Flashbacks would certainly stand out if Bond films started doing them. Flashbacks are also the kind of thing that are hard to do well. Quite often, flashbacks come across as cheesy when they aren't meant to be, and I fear that would be the case if Bond tried it. Sometimes the past can be touched on effectively in conversation, like in Octopussy. We learn something about Bond and Octopussy through conversation, and the dialogue sounds natural.

Loeffelholz

I agree with everything you say, my friend. I have always imagined depicting Bond's parents' death in a PTS...this fantasy is old enough that I wanted Sean Connery to play Andrew Bond ;% But then again, I found Silva's long-shot monologue intro more interesting than you did ...so perhaps I've reconciled that the Bond film formula has constraints (self-imposed, granted), and they are ever obeyed.

(and the big reason the fighting fish weren't seen in combat is that the fish refused to perform for the cameras, LOL, and some dodgy editing was needed)

Loeffelholz

Matt S wrote:

Loeffelholz wrote:

-{ Very frustrating for a writer, I can tell you. But it's worth noting that flashbacks aren't really employed by this franchise...GE's PTS is arguably one, but the next scene simply says "Nine years later." That sort of edict necessitates exposition via dialogue.

Flashbacks would certainly stand out if Bond films started doing them. Flashbacks are also the kind of thing that are hard to do well. Quite often, flashbacks come across as cheesy when they aren't meant to be, and I fear that would be the case if Bond tried it. Sometimes the past can be touched on effectively in conversation, like in Octopussy. We learn something about Bond and Octopussy through conversation, and the dialogue sounds natural.

It would be interesting to see, for sure, and you are correct in that they are tricky to pull off unobtrusively. The straight-ahead narrative style is something that Fleming himself relied upon, so there's a certain symmetry to the films doing it as well.

Gassy Man

I had no idea about the fish!

Thunderbird 2

Another writing trope Bond has avoided is non linear story telling. Jumping between timeframes has become a fashionable (and annoying) trope.
By contrast, the Mendes Bond films both play on theatrics rather than action to build tension. So as much as the writing causes confusion, the theatrics in the dialogue scenes are cranked up, whereas the action is slightly downplayed compared to previous films. Another sharp contrast to CR-06.

Gassy - never mind the fish, go and get the chips!

Mcmadness

Pretty sure the guy wasn't doing everything just to get at bond, that was just a bonus.

Them being step brothers is rather silly and as others have pointed out little comes of it but I've suspended my disbelief for weirder things so I can deal with it.

zaphod99

Gassy Man wrote:

Loeffelholz wrote:

Gassy Man wrote:

The thing is, though, it's another dodge and hustle. We're simply told they grew up together and Blofeld is a sociopath with a vendetta. Not even when they finally come face to face do they acknowledge anything other than a casual understanding of this situation. If they'd taken the time to actually do something on screen with it, silly as the concept itself could be, I might have see something relevant, but instead, it's another expository factoid that dramatically fizzles. From a story-telling point of view, the intense hatred for Bond is better set up by the ending, where Bond scars and foils his plans.

I'll concede all of that, but I guess I just minded it less than you did The third act has pacing problems as it is, and whatever revisions were made to the script prior to shooting were clearly not sufficient. I think it would have been a different thing if it had devolved into more bitter recrimination than what we got. It works for me---not superbly, but adequately.

I will say that I would be absolutely delighted to see completely new names as writing credits for #25.

Absolutely! It's amazing that they've had the best cast and the most money in years to make Bond films, and they hire such mediocre talent to be writers.

Almost all the problems are typical of lesser writers and also endemic in modern filmmaking. They raise an idea but then don't explore it. They fall in love with the concept but then don't follow through. Modern audiences let them get away with it. For all the criticism of Spectre I've read, none of it has been on too much exposition and not enough drama. The same for Skyfall. Yet both films suffer from the same problem.

Compare this to Casino Royale. With the exception of giving the romance short shrift, it at least tried to show rather than tell. Even the "boring" scenes, like the actual card game. That's one of the reasons the film works so well. We're not told Bond is reckless -- we see scenes that show it. We're not told that Bond is fearless -- we see scenes that show it. Even the revelation that Bond is an orphan is revealed in a dramatic scene -- Bond being one-upped by Vesper. Casino Royale is memorable for its scenes.

But while Skyfall and Spectre have lots of spectacle, the scenes of Bond's past are absent. The closest we get is a photo of Bond with his foster father. Imagine if Bond's actual past was given as much attention as the PTS or the train fight -- in other words, dramatically recreated.

The third act stalls, in particular, not only because the scale is smaller -- a handful of people running around two buildings -- but because it spends a lot of time on undramatic action filler Bond running around corridors. Q typing on a laptop. These are easy shots to make, of course, which makes directing simpler. But what if just three minutes of all that were cut and instead, we got a brief actual scene from Bond's childhood? What if during the interrogation scene, Blofeld were later to query Bond not about Swann but about their childhood together, tied in to the earlier scene? Missed opportunities, but creating such requires work.

Some terrific ideas/angles here, what a shame that nothing as well constructed made it into the film.I still like it, but have noticed that I have not yet gone for a second viewing. My guess is the goodwill and license ro be a bit shoddy are unlikely to survive a second view and I don't want to feel disappointed by it (does that make sense? Should I seek professional help) As has been mentioned elsewhere, with all that tme,talent and money it's a shame.

zaphod99

zaphod99 wrote:

Gassy Man wrote:

Loeffelholz wrote:

I'll concede all of that, but I guess I just minded it less than you did The third act has pacing problems as it is, and whatever revisions were made to the script prior to shooting were clearly not sufficient. I think it would have been a different thing if it had devolved into more bitter recrimination than what we got. It works for me---not superbly, but adequately.

I will say that I would be absolutely delighted to see completely new names as writing credits for #25.

Absolutely! It's amazing that they've had the best cast and the most money in years to make Bond films, and they hire such mediocre talent to be writers.

Almost all the problems are typical of lesser writers and also endemic in modern filmmaking. They raise an idea but then don't explore it. They fall in love with the concept but then don't follow through. Modern audiences let them get away with it. For all the criticism of Spectre I've read, none of it has been on too much exposition and not enough drama. The same for Skyfall. Yet both films suffer from the same problem.

Compare this to Casino Royale. With the exception of giving the romance short shrift, it at least tried to show rather than tell. Even the "boring" scenes, like the actual card game. That's one of the reasons the film works so well. We're not told Bond is reckless -- we see scenes that show it. We're not told that Bond is fearless -- we see scenes that show it. Even the revelation that Bond is an orphan is revealed in a dramatic scene -- Bond being one-upped by Vesper. Casino Royale is memorable for its scenes.

But while Skyfall and Spectre have lots of spectacle, the scenes of Bond's past are absent. The closest we get is a photo of Bond with his foster father. Imagine if Bond's actual past was given as much attention as the PTS or the train fight -- in other words, dramatically recreated.

The third act stalls, in particular, not only because the scale is smaller -- a handful of people running around two buildings -- but because it spends a lot of time on undramatic action filler Bond running around corridors. Q typing on a laptop. These are easy shots to make, of course, which makes directing simpler. But what if just three minutes of all that were cut and instead, we got a brief actual scene from Bond's childhood? What if during the interrogation scene, Blofeld were later to query Bond not about Swann but about their childhood together, tied in to the earlier scene? Missed opportunities, but creating such requires work.

Some terrific ideas/angles here, what a shame that nothing as well constructed made it into the film.I still like it, but have noticed that I have not yet gone for a second viewing. My guess is the goodwill and license ro be a bit shoddy are unlikely to survive a second view and I don't want to feel disappointed by it (does that make sense? Should I seek professional help) As has been mentioned elsewhere, with all that tme,talent and money it's a shame.

Spectreville

Mcmadness wrote:

Pretty sure the guy wasn't doing everything just to get at bond, that was just a bonus.

Them being step brothers is rather silly and as others have pointed out little comes of it but I've suspended my disbelief for weirder things so I can deal with it.

Yes, I'm sure there were other factors that caused Blofeld to create SPECTRE.

I just think the writers should have given Blofeld more of a multiple choice origin instead of just the personal connection with Bond. That way, it could have been any number of reasons that motivated him, making him harder to explain and more mysterious.

Mcmadness

Spectreville wrote:

Yes, I'm sure there were other factors that caused Blofeld to create SPECTRE.

I just think the writers should have given Blofeld more of a multiple choice origin instead of just the personal connection with Bond. That way, it could have been any number of reasons that motivated him, making him harder to explain and more mysterious.

I can agree with that. Blofeld I found worked best in movies like FRWL or Thunderball where he was an unknown character that everybody feared with powerful connections and lots of resources under his command and while some of that is still prevalent him being more personally connected with Bond ruins some of that unknown menace he had before.

However if they do more with this concept in later films then I can deal with it.

perdogg

I am curious as to why EON wasted a reference to Ernst Stavro Blofeld if only to use him so briefly unless some one is going to break him out of jail for Bond 25.

Mcmadness

perdogg wrote:

I am curious as to why EON wasted a reference to Ernst Stavro Blofeld if only to use him so briefly unless some one is going to break him out of jail for Bond 25.

I am absolutely positive this won't be the last we hear of him.