Would the film have been better if Oberhauser wasn't Blofeld?

MilleniumForce

I mean, have the exact same film, involving SPECTRE and everything, but Franz not be Blofeld. Oberhauser remains as Oberhauser throughout the entire film, and Bond does kill him, leaving Blofeld to become the new head of SPECTRE. I think this would have worked better because I don't mind the story,mout having him be Blofeld is just a bit too far for me. I'd rather this be a maniac, who we've never seen before in the Bond films, who is out for revenge on Bond.

Lady Ice

That could have worked; it would have worked well setting up the next film although the title does kind of promise Blofeld as the main nemesis. Plus if they still kept the plot point that the Craig villains are all linked to Spectre, Oberhauser would be another delay to getting to the 'real villain'.

Interesting to think about though as they could have made Blofeld a more shadowy figure but he showed his hand far too soon.

Gassy Man

No, the film didn't have to feature Oberhauser as Blofeld -- a good observation. In the same way, Skyfall didn't need to bring in Bond's past or feature the Skyfall mansion. Bond could have just shot it out with Silva in another location, perhaps even M's childhood home (which actually would have made more sense if she'd insisted on going there despite Bond's objections). These elements in bth are shoe-horned into the plot to give some personal relevance without much depth or logic.

Matt S

Gassy Man wrote:

No, the film didn't have to feature Oberhauser as Blofeld -- a good observation. In the same way, Skyfall didn't need to bring in Bond's past or feature the Skyfall mansion. Bond could have just shot it out with Silva in another location, perhaps even M's childhood home (which actually would have made more sense if she'd insisted on going there despite Bond's objections). These elements in bth are shoe-horned into the plot to give some personal relevance without much depth or logic.

Good points. The personal elements make people think the films are deeper because of the personal connections, but because of the way they are shoehorned into the stories, they don't really develop the character any more. Craig's Bond films have attempted to become character-driven stories, but Bond films cannot be driven by the character and trying to make them such doesn't work. Fleming's stories aren't like this either. His stories were not all about Bond. Fleming made Bond a very interesting character, but the stories weren't all about him. That's where SF and SP really lose Fleming.

Gassy Man

Matt S wrote:

Gassy Man wrote:

No, the film didn't have to feature Oberhauser as Blofeld -- a good observation. In the same way, Skyfall didn't need to bring in Bond's past or feature the Skyfall mansion. Bond could have just shot it out with Silva in another location, perhaps even M's childhood home (which actually would have made more sense if she'd insisted on going there despite Bond's objections). These elements in bth are shoe-horned into the plot to give some personal relevance without much depth or logic.

Good points. The personal elements make people think the films are deeper because of the personal connections, but because of the way they are shoehorned into the stories, they don't really develop the character any more. Craig's Bond films have attempted to become character-driven stories, but Bond films cannot be driven by the character and trying to make them such doesn't work. Fleming's stories aren't like this either. His stories were not all about Bond. Fleming made Bond a very interesting character, but the stories weren't all about him. That's where SF and SP really lose Fleming.

Thanks, though I do think they can be driven by character. Certainly, the better films -- FRWL, OHMSS, and CR make a stronger effort. The problem is that in those films, the talents created an entire story around the idea, whereas the last two in particular have mostly just raised the issue without much follow through.

zaphod99

Gassy Man wrote:

Matt S wrote:

Gassy Man wrote:

No, the film didn't have to feature Oberhauser as Blofeld -- a good observation. In the same way, Skyfall didn't need to bring in Bond's past or feature the Skyfall mansion. Bond could have just shot it out with Silva in another location, perhaps even M's childhood home (which actually would have made more sense if she'd insisted on going there despite Bond's objections). These elements in bth are shoe-horned into the plot to give some personal relevance without much depth or logic.

Good points. The personal elements make people think the films are deeper because of the personal connections, but because of the way they are shoehorned into the stories, they don't really develop the character any more. Craig's Bond films have attempted to become character-driven stories, but Bond films cannot be driven by the character and trying to make them such doesn't work. Fleming's stories aren't like this either. His stories were not all about Bond. Fleming made Bond a very interesting character, but the stories weren't all about him. That's where SF and SP really lose Fleming.

Thanks, though I do think they can be driven by character. Certainly, the better films -- FRWL, OHMSS, and CR make a stronger effort. The problem is that in those films, the talents created an entire story around the idea, whereas the last two in particular have mostly just raised the issue without much follow through.

I really can see both sides of this but probably believe that although it can work if the writing is strong enough essentially it should not be about Bond. We should learn things about him along the way as he learns things about himself, but he is not the main focus. This extends to M and any of the main characters. I believe and really hope that SP has brought this to an end at least for a while...

Lady Ice

Matt S wrote:

Good points. The personal elements make people think the films are deeper because of the personal connections, but because of the way they are shoehorned into the stories, they don't really develop the character any more.

This! It's insulting the audience's intelligence to think that adding in a bit of cod-Freudian childhood trauma makes the character deeper. Next we will discover that Q is Bond's lovechild offspring and M is his cousin...

Less is more; even if they did definitely want to go down the adoptive brother route with Blofeld, they showed their hand too early. Now we know Blofeld's motivation, it'll be a pat explanation behind everything that he does.

Youknowthename

Nice observation! One is inclined to think they used Blofeld because they could... Spectre's biggest flaw is perhaps leaning on the previous movies, tying them together with Blofeld as the mastermind. As a fan you know what's what, but regular viewers might get lost.

Matt S

Gassy Man wrote:

Thanks, though I do think they can be driven by character. Certainly, the better films -- FRWL, OHMSS, and CR make a stronger effort. The problem is that in those films, the talents created an entire story around the idea, whereas the last two in particular have mostly just raised the issue without much follow through.

FRWL is not driven by Bond's character, and OHMSS mostly is not either. CR is really the only one.

Sir Miles

Gassy Man wrote:

Bond could have just shot it out with Silva in another location, perhaps even M's childhood home (which actually would have made more sense if she'd insisted on going there despite Bond's objections)...

If they had gone to M's childhood home then Bond wouldn't know the 'lie of the land' and therefore would lose the advantage he was seeking....