That's what a friend of mine said to me when he first saw it, and it made him stop caring about what happened. It just made Blofeld seem a whole lot less menacing, and the stakes were lowered considerably when we find out the reason.
Have to agree, makes Blofeld seem incredibly sad and pathetic. Besides the whole obsessive revenge theme was done in SF anyway. They obviously just unsuccessfully upped the ante for Spectre.
Yep. And not only was the revenge thing already done in SF, it was ten times better too. Silva actually had good reasoning, unlike Blofeld.
About Blofeld in Spectre, I just got more confused as the movie went on. He just seemed comical, not menacing by the end. I guess they could have made a better casting choice, although I thought he would do better than he did when I heard he had been cast as Blofeld.
I mean, they waited so long to do a Spectre storyline (years waiting for the rights) and then they delivered something confusing and uninvolving (for large parts of the movie)
It had some good moments, but it just didn't hang together well enough. And I agree that Blofeld being related to Bond was just daft.
A great big simple Spectre conspiracy to destroy the world movie is what we need. With no personal backstory of villain or hero. Just a mad Spectre romp.
Sir MilesThe Wrong Side Of The WardrobePosts: 27,912Chief of Staff
And what was the point if nine eyes? Quantum had people everywhere they facilitated government changes, had the cia in their pocket and had a man stood next to the chief of mi6.
Didn't Greene give chapter and verse on Quantum to Bond? Perhaps Quantum was 'rolled up'?
He did indeed, which doesn't explain Mr whites involvement with Spectre. Or Blofelds involvement in quantum And Blofeld recalling meeting madeleine Swann as a child? in any event the demise of Quantum was never explained, what did they do just change the corporate name and order some new rings and headed letter paper?
True...and anything we'd come up would only be conjecture...but... ...you'd think Mr White would be high up in SPECTRE, probably Blofeld's right-hand man...hence Blofeld seeing Madeleine as a child...maybe Quantum was a 'cut-out' for SPECTRE...layers upon layers kind of thing...?
Didn't Greene give chapter and verse on Quantum to Bond? Perhaps Quantum was 'rolled up'?
He did indeed, which doesn't explain Mr whites involvement with Spectre. Or Blofelds involvement in quantum And Blofeld recalling meeting madeleine Swann as a child? in any event the demise of Quantum was never explained, what did they do just change the corporate name and order some new rings and headed letter paper?
True...and anything we'd come up would only be conjecture...but... ...you'd think Mr White would be high up in SPECTRE, probably Blofeld's right-hand man...hence Blofeld seeing Madeleine as a child...maybe Quantum was a 'cut-out' for SPECTRE...layers upon layers kind of thing...?
I have heard the " quantum is a Spectre tentacle" theory and that possibly works.
Eh, take out the silliness about Bond and Blofeld being brothers, and it pretty much is a standard Bond film, with the exception that its actions sequences generally underwhelm. It's certainly the closest thing Craig has made to one.
I respectfully disagree, the nine-eyes plot and heavy MI6 focus is very prominent too.
Taking out the Blofeld brothers plot would certainly make it more standard, but you could say the same thing about the other 3 DC films in terms of taking out certain elements of them too. And even with that, nine-eyes remains.
I'm not sure what the most 'standard' Craig bond film is. Maybe QOS, but it is a very hard choice, because none of them are even close.
I get what you're saying, but it's the most formulaic of Craig's Bond films. Scene for scene, it ticks of all the particulars in the order we expect -- teaser on mission, check, meeting in M's office, check, scene with Q, check, etc. The other three Craig Bonds are either missing these scenes or they're in a different order. Of all the Craig films, it seems to recycle elements the most, which makes sense given it's really the first one that brings back a classic Bond villain.
The reason it doesn't work as well -- at least to me -- is that Mendes fails to deliver on the action (past the teaser) and the suspense. The torture scene is a great example. In Casino Royale, the torture scene was taut and menacing. It had genuine tension. The stakes seemed real. Craig and Mikkelsen play it brilliantly. In Spectre, it comes across as thin by comparison, other than some squirming because of the concept. The scene isn't helped by having a socksless Blofeld clear across the room at what appears to be a 1970s era rollaway CRT stand.
Bond and Swann's escape is equally underwhelming. In what could have been a pretty major action scene, it got reduced to a shootout with a few thugs. Once again, there's no "umph" to it at all. More is shown on TV shows these days. But then Mendes isn't really a strong action director.
I don't find Nine Eyes or the rest particularly compelling. Not much is really done with it in the plot, either. It's mentioned, and I guess it allows Swann to see what happens to her father, but it's mostly a Maguffin.
I still think Casino Royale is Craig's most successful Bond for any number of reasons.
Something else I don't really understand is what exactly happened to Quantum? And why did they need to bring back Spectre if they already had Quantum? Seems unnecessary when they already established Quantum as a new age Spectre-like organization.
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
Well...one can certainly say that a Bond film going off the rails in the third act is something of a tradition in itself ) ...and in that respect SP is very traditional. But doing it right in London is a notable departure.
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Comments
I mean, they waited so long to do a Spectre storyline (years waiting for the rights) and then they delivered something confusing and uninvolving (for large parts of the movie)
It had some good moments, but it just didn't hang together well enough. And I agree that Blofeld being related to Bond was just daft.
A great big simple Spectre conspiracy to destroy the world movie is what we need. With no personal backstory of villain or hero. Just a mad Spectre romp.
True...and anything we'd come up would only be conjecture...but...
The reason it doesn't work as well -- at least to me -- is that Mendes fails to deliver on the action (past the teaser) and the suspense. The torture scene is a great example. In Casino Royale, the torture scene was taut and menacing. It had genuine tension. The stakes seemed real. Craig and Mikkelsen play it brilliantly. In Spectre, it comes across as thin by comparison, other than some squirming because of the concept. The scene isn't helped by having a socksless Blofeld clear across the room at what appears to be a 1970s era rollaway CRT stand.
Bond and Swann's escape is equally underwhelming. In what could have been a pretty major action scene, it got reduced to a shootout with a few thugs. Once again, there's no "umph" to it at all. More is shown on TV shows these days. But then Mendes isn't really a strong action director.
I don't find Nine Eyes or the rest particularly compelling. Not much is really done with it in the plot, either. It's mentioned, and I guess it allows Swann to see what happens to her father, but it's mostly a Maguffin.
I still think Casino Royale is Craig's most successful Bond for any number of reasons.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM