2015's SPECTRE without SPECTRE or Blofeld
John from Cork
Posts: 129MI6 Agent
If the movie SPECTRE had been called "Echoes of Yesterday" and if Oberhauser was just named Oberhauser in the script and SPECTRE the organization just stayed Quantum, it would have been the exact same movie making no difference to the story whatsoever.
Comments
I suppose so though it would then be missing the "personal angle" every Craig era Bond film seemingly needed to have. As soon as Eon got the rights to Blofeld and SPECTRE back from the Kevin McClory Estate they were keen to get using them so Quantum was therefore out of the window. "Brofeld" then provided the "personal angle" though i really wished it hadn't as it's a crass idea.
I suppose so though it would then be missing the "personal angle" every Craig era Bond film seemingly needed to have.
Not really: as John said it would still have Oberhauser Jr, who presumably still would have killed his dad Oberhauser who Bond knew from childhood (a plotline direct from Fleming let's not forget).
Echoes of Yesterday is a fun idea for a title because of course it basically means the same as 'Spectre', which was the intention of the title, with its double meaning.
You could certainly change the baddie's name to something else and it wouldn't affect the story whatsoever, but that's true of pretty much all Bond films isn't it?
I see what @John from Cork is saying, it seems a bit hamfisted to put Spectre in there given it hasn't really been foreshadowed - nor was Oberhauser either I guess - and I think some hate the Brofeld idea (never heard that before) more simply because it's so like Dr Evil and Austin Powers. And slightly traduces a famous key nemesis, it all seems quite petty. Then again, would Spectre have been strong enough without Spectre- take the presence of Spectre out and the film has to stand on its own merits.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
It's certainly contrived- retrofitting the idea of there being someone behind the scenes all along is something I'm not sure quite ever feels comfortable. Coming up with Quantum felt a little better I guess because we'd already seen Mr White and we knew from the start he represented some villains- perhaps if they'd just stuck with him, and revealed him to be Blofeld and that Quantum changed its name to SPECTRE, maybe that would have felt more organic (although I guess it wouldn't have felt much of a shock for the man we already know is a shadowy villain to turn out to be a shadowy villain; plus he never really feels Blofeld-ish).
I can totally see why they did it: they're basically just adapting Fleming's Octopussy and deciding to swap Smythe's story over to Blofeld, which isn't that terrible an idea when you see it in black and white. Why not- it's not like Fleming didn't give Bond a personal grudge against Blofeld. But yeah, there's just layers and layers of 'maybe we can tie it into this' laid on top, and it ends up feeling uncomfortable. If he had just remained Oberhauser then you wouldn't have the Austin Powersness of it making the audience step out of the film and think it's all a bit silly and it might have worked.
Or maybe you have Blofeld recruit Oberhauser Jr, knowing of his link to Bond, in order to mess with 007- that way you get rid of the forced-feeling childhood link between these two men who happened to grow up to both become involved in espionage. But then I can imagine reading that version of the script and thinking that it's simpler to just combine their characters into one. Or maybe C should have been Oberhauser Jr- would that have been easier to swallow?
I think removing SPECTRE and Blofeld would've made it a better movie. Then the next Bond actor could have the SPECTRE storyline to work with, and now the writer could've put more thought into the development. If EON also hired a director who could shoot more energetic scenes, for example Gary Fukunaga, the movie would've probably be better than what we got.
It feels uncomfortable because the back stories of the previous three movies are shoe-horned around SPECTRE and Blofeld. I don't buy into the Brofeld thing at all and no argument will ever persuade me that was a good idea. They should have just let Quantum lie and created Spectre anew - perhaps with Madeleine as Blofeld's daughter - after all John Gardner created a female Blofeld and Eon was constantly stealing his ideas. I can't tell you how it would work narratively, it is just a thought.
itd definitely be a less annoying movie, though the personal backstory content would still be a little annoying
yes, save the SPECTRE content for another film. They went to so much trouble to get the rights back to the words SPECTRE and Blofeld (literally decades of lawsuits), why squander their hardwon newly acquired properties right away in one poorly conceived film?
maybe just drop the word SPECTRE into a few dialogs, maybe with Mr Whyte, dont explain it, let it hang there, all ominous like. Maybe have two minor villains whisper the word Blofeld between themselves, then they both look like theyre scared by the very name, "ooh Blofeld, scary", and again do not explain or even waste time questioning, just move along with the films main story of Oberhauser and QUANTUM.
in the original films SPECTRE was a single word spoken in dinner conversation between Dr No and Bond, otherwise left to our imaginations. It wasnt til the second film we saw something of the organisation. It wasnt til the fifth film that we learned the big baddy behind the other baddies had a name. Four film of buildup before the big reveal, but the Broccoli kids didnt appreciate the potential of that type of serialised storytelling and blew it all at once.
most annoying of all in the film SPECTRE is when the villain says "and now my name is not Oberhauser ... it is Blofeld!!! hahoohawhaw!" and Bond and Madeleine and all the minions start muttering in fear "no! not Blofeld! anything but Blofeld!" as if the word means anything in the CraigVerse. It doesnt, any meaning is purely metafictional, an injoke to an audience who've already seen the old good films. Just like the car in the garage in the previous film. If theyd at least shown a few minions speaking Blofelds name in fear in an earlier scene, the big "reveal" might have worked, but not in the film as released.
Four film of buildup before the big reveal, but the Broccoli kids didnt appreciate the potential of that type of serialised storytelling and blew it all at once.
It was the fourth film in the Craig series though, nine years in. I get what you're saying that SPECTRE hadn't been mentioned before that, but they attempted to tie it in retrospectively. I don't really see the point in putting it off and deferring the pleasure- it's not like Broccoli and Saltzman had any grand plan for SPECTRE either, it just popped up when it popped up.
most annoying of all in the film SPECTRE is when the villain says "and now my name is not Oberhauser ... it is Blofeld!!! hahoohawhaw!" and Bond and Madeleine and all the minions start muttering in fear "no! not Blofeld! anything but Blofeld!" as if the word means anything in the CraigVerse.
That simply doesn't happen, nothing even vaguely like that. Bond sarkily says "Catchy name"- and that's it.
They ballsed it up because Blofeld is hardly used in the next film - his presence was seen as fan disservice! But he had to be used, given it was the last Craig film, so it became another hoop to jump through, they had to shoehorn him in.
Again, really not sure Oberhausen is quite a villainous enough character for Bond to contend with if he's NOT Blofeld - the name is doing a bit of heavy lifting.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
MTM said: That simply doesn't happen, nothing even vaguely like that. Bond snarkily says "Catchy name"- and that's it.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
I admit I exaggerated/made that up for a cheeplaff. actually the filmd be better if that happened.
within the film we got, its actually an unnecessary detail, like who cares if he changed his name, it doesnt affect anything within the story. but it allows EON to shoehorn in their new intellectual property, and thats conspicuous to us viewers, dragging us out of the story.
I'd like to see how someone reacts to this scene who has no knowledge of the old films
Do you know what else made no sense? The way everyone just switched like a light switch to calling him Blofeld, did he even legally change his name by deed poll?
There's got to be a Imaginary Conversation about that...
Ah, yes, that's true. I think that actually would have been much less problematic had they only used the Oberhauser character and not had him as a cover for the big reveal that he in in fact Blofeld. My criticism is not that they use Fleming material as they undoubtedly do (Thunderball and 'Octopussy' are utilised in Spectre) but rather that since the relatively faithful Casino Royale it's been about how they use the material. They tend to change so much that we're almost back to the 1967 You Only Live Twice "mere elements of Fleming" being used. For instance, they take the Oberhauser story and subvert it by making it about Blofeld and Bond's arch-nemesis turning out to be his adopted stepbrother also. This is continued in No Time to Die where Blofeld's Garden of Death is reduced to a few plants and Blofeld is ditched after only one film as the main villain in favour of a new Eon created villain called Safin. Even the use of the "Die, Blofeld, die!" quote is subverted as Bond kills Blofeld only by accident and not by design which is a long way off from the gripping samurai and stave fight between Bond and Blofeld in the 1964 novel. Hopefully going forward Eon will adapt Fleming properly and not only take a few ideas here and there and change them almost out of all recognition.
I don't know if there's much chance of more substantial Fleming adaptations as there's not much really left in that vein is there? I also don't know if I'd say the Oberhauser story is subverted as such; it's just expanded, much like they've always done with the short stories.
Also in there are other nice little touches from Fleming: like his initial character sketch of Blofeld had him trading in intercepted communications during the war, which aligns quite nicely with the whole concept of the Nine Eyes thing. That's maybe one reason why you couldn't swap Blofeld/SPECTRE out of the film: the evil plan actually is Blofeld's modus operandi. Plus when Fleming was a teenager he went to Austria and was looked after by a couple who were psychotherapists, specialising in treating people who had extreme cases of rivalry with their siblings- I think that's some actually quite nice thinking there.
What was in there from Thunderball?
MTM says:
Fleming: like his initial character sketch of Blofeld had him trading in intercepted communications during the war, which aligns quite nicely with the whole concept of the Nine Eyes thing.
_____________________________________________
thats a good one I never spotted. It shows they did reread the book, looking for previously unused material. Still, they've reassigned one villains evil plan to another before (Goldfinger>Zorin, Blofeld>Stromberg), that doesnt mean it has to be Blofeld, just use the plan and make it a new villain. In the "my name is Blofeld" scene, he's borrowing Colonel Sun's torture schtick.
main Thunderball content in SPECTRE was a variation on the meeting scene. There was also a funeral scene, but thats a variation on a scene from the film, not Fleming.
thats a good one I never spotted. It shows they did reread the book, looking for previously unused material. Still, they've reassigned one villains evil plan to another before (Goldfinger>Zorin, Blofeld>Stromberg), that doesnt mean it has to be Blofeld, just use the plan and make it a new villain. In the "my name is Blofeld" scene, he's borrowing Colonel Sun's torture schtick.
That's a good point, but then I guess really what plot is there that has to be Blofeld/SPECTRE if we can just change the names? It could be Mr White/Quantum in YOLT if we wanted it to be- I kind of don't entirely get the point in the first post of this thread.
As you say, they've done it before, not least with SMERSH's plan being given to SPECTRE.
main Thunderball content in SPECTRE was a variation on the meeting scene.
Oh yes, good point.
Going off on tangent a bit, but watching Calvin Dyson's excellent and funny review of NTTD, he reminds us in a clip that Ralph Fiennes pushed back on attempts by Mendes to make his M Blofeld, saying 'This isn't Mission Impossible...' Well, okay, but it seemed to me there was stuff in Skyfall that suggested he might be the villain at some point and it seems odd that Fiennes didn't get notification of that. This explains the problem - we have two big name actors getting to veto or decide what happens to their character in a Bond film - Craig being the other one, of course.
So there was some intended continuity there - but it got nixed and instead we got the Oberhausen idea.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Thanks, @caractacus potts. Yes, that's the general bit from the Thunderball novel I was referring to - the film uses it to set up Oberhauser/Blofeld as the villain and leader of Spectre as well as the scene where a member is killed during a high level Spectre meeting (this time by Mr Hinx as opposed to Blofeld himself).
To be honest if the idea is to make M be the villain (as much as the likes of Kingsley Amis thought he basically was - see The James Bond Dossier and M's treatment in Colonel Sun) then I'm glad there are actors who feel they can speak up to nix such preposterous ideas. I think M, Bill Tanner, Major Boothroyd/Q and Moneypenny are sacrosanct Fleming characters and they shouldn't ever be messed about with by muddying the waters and making them villains. It's a pity nobody spoke up about Blofeld being Bond's stepbrother though. Ah, well. You can't win 'em all.
I don't think Skyfall really does imply that he's a baddie does it? We start off wary of him because he's pushing M out, but after a while it becomes clear he's a pretty good sort.
Wasn't there an idea in the late 00s to make Judy Dench's M a criminal and have Bond kill her in the end ?
I've not heard that (could well be) but I believe an early draft of Octopussy involved M being assassinated and a double agent taking his place as the new M. Although it's an intriguing idea it goes against what I said above about messing too much with the regulars. M being kidnapped (Colonel Sun, Cold and TWINE) has been done before but if they wanted to experiment with M again the opening scene of TMWTGG would be a good place to start with a brainwashed Bond sent to assassinate his boss. Maybe something for Bond number 007 to do?
I think the treatment referred to had flashbacks with Helen McCrory as a young M who had some treacherous past, dunno about Bond killing her, sounds a bit off, the wrong side of Freudian, anyway it turned into Skyfall with M dying and McCrory getting a minor role instead. Not really sure these Ms are sacrosanct because they're not Fleming creations are they, but that said I take Fiennes point if he is saying that the whole point of M in the Bond films is that they are true and trusted - not sure how that plays in NTTD - as Calvin Dyson observes, his M should be in Belmarsh after instigating the nanobots stuff.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Someone suggested a while ago that McCrory should have played C in Spectre, and I think that would have instantly made the film ten times better.
This.
RIP Helen.
I like Andrew Scott but he was just playing Moriarty again.
If the movie SPECTRE had been called "Echoes of Yesterday" and if Oberhauser was just named Oberhauser in the script and SPECTRE the organization just stayed Quantum, it would have been the exact same movie making no difference to the story whatsoever.
I would have eliminated Oberhauser from the story as well. If a personal angle was required, one was already present, since Bond was finally catching up to Mr. White and destroying the organization that helped destroy Vesper.
The Oberhauser angle was unnecessary (Bond barely gives a damn anyway). In Fleming's "Octopussy" Oberhauser's connection with Bond exists to explain why Bond was visiting Smythe, rather the usual government functionary. But giving Oberhauser a resentful son who grows up to become--dun dun dun!--Blofeld is a hat on a hat. It might have worked in the James Bond Jr cartoon but nowhere else, since there's something deeply silly about the enmity between Bond and the supervillain stemming from their childhood together. And making Bond and Blofeld de facto stepbrothers is a dramatically inert concept, since the characters intrinsically have so little in common.
There was no value in bringing Blofeld and Spectre into Craig's fourth and possibly final film when Mr. White and Quantum already existed. The greatest value of Blofeld and SPECTRE was their potential for long-range use. The Craig series was already too far along to effectively use them and already had analogues in Quantum and Mr. White. And then Spectre added insult to injury in its unconvincing attempt to retcon SPECTRE into the organization behind all of Craig's previous baddies. If only the producers had made the sensible decision to save Blofeld and SPECTRE for the next Bond actor. As things are, SPECTRE could be resurrected under new leadership (Bond villains will always need non-ideological backers) but Blofeld will be unusable for at least a generation.
Yeah the Oberhauser things works as a motivation for Bond to get revenge for the murder of his childhood mentor, but the film curiously doesn't do that- Bond doesn't actually seem to care particularly. I don't think there's any moment where he talks about Oberhauser Sr with any sort of fondness is there? And when Blofeld already has enough reason to bear a grudge against Bond i.e. 007 has just wrecked a few of his plans (apparently), the cuckoo thing does end up feeling a little redundant. All it really does is to give a reason for Blofeld having a slight obsession with Bond and for the 'author of all your pain' thing, which just never feels very convincing anyway.
It's a shame as I think the Oberhauser plot could work as a basis for a plot, and the cuckoo thing is kind of interesting- I'm not sure I've come across that plot before. But I think in all of the many drafts they lost track of the whys and wherefores and it all rather came apart.
I don't know if I agree with the idea of saving SPECTRE and Blofeld for some point in the distant future though: I don't think there's much point in deferred pleasure. They're great big entertainment spectacles: throw everything you have at the screen right now and just worry about the next film in a couple of years' time- you might not even get to make it. If they thought that they had a solid enough footing to use them, then use them. It didn't work out, but I don't think that means that the basic idea is flawed.
I wonder if there was some legal requirement they use the names SPECTRE and Blofeld by a certain date, or theyd revert to public domain?
comics reintroduce unpopular characters and titles once a decade or so just to keep the trademark
speaking of comics...
______________________________
emtiem said : the cuckoo thing is kind of interesting- I'm not sure I've come across that plot before.
______________________________
in Marvel Comics and Norse mythology, Loki is the adopted step-brother of Thor, I think he's actually related to the frost-giants. other way around from bond and Blofeld of course, because Odin is Thors father and Lokis adopted father. But Loki's disruptive presence in Odin and Thors family, and Odins insistence he has some purpose, drives much of the conflict. Loki even recruits other villains to fight Thor, giving them magical powers, which is analogous to the "author of all your pain" concept
It's less about deferring than maximizing pleasure. There wasn't much point in using Blofeld and SPECTRE in Craig's fourth and penultimate film because they were redundant. Quantum and Mr. White already existed, and shoehorning Blofeld and SPECTRE as their replacements had predictably awkward results. Saving Blofeld and SPECTRE for the next Bond actor would have offered the opportunity to get full mileage out of them by replicating what the first Bond films successfully did: introduce Spectre at the start, then introduce its shadowy mastermind, have Bond defeat Spectre a few times, and down the road have Bond and the mastermind finally confront each other. Trying to telescope that process into one film, as Spectre did, was a predictable botch. The film wanted to engage in long-term storytelling via shortcuts, and that can't work.
But then we're talking about having a series of interlinked films with an overarching story, which many Bond fans keep telling us they don't want.
I agree that retroactively adding a backstory is very often a bad idea and didn't work here, but that's not the same as the idea of using Blofeld full stop, and I still reject the idea of deferred pleasure- if there's a big stunt or great baddie they have an idea for and they think it'll fit they'll put it in the film they're making.
Oberhauser is the name of Bond's ski instructor in Fleming's short Octopussy, and making him the man who raised Bond after the death of his parents is not something irrelevant. If the "family" link between Bond and the villain doesn't disturb me, the fact the guy has been watching Bond all along and only aims to make his life a real mess because of some childhood resentment is very disappointing. Also, using the middle name "Stavro" was not a very smart move considering Oberhauser is Austrian and never mentions greek roots. When fan service is poorly used, the result follows. It's like if they didn't assume this new Spectre iteration, which was not necessarily supposed to feature Blofeld.
I like when the main villain has motivations dealing with geopolitics, global threats and espionage. In Spectre, the rivalry Mallory/Denbigh is much more interesting than the Bond/Oberhauser one. Furthermore, the Nine Eyes committee was a wonderful concept they could have done something incredible with. Instead of that, they thought focusing on "shadows from the past" during the climax would be a good idea. But it has nothing to do with the stakes of mass surveillance.
John Logan is the one who initially wrote the script, and although the final plot is not far from the revised version by Purvis & Wade, the climax was better than what we got in the movie. Instead of preventing Denbigh from putting Nine Eyes online, Bond and Q decide to use the sytem to compromise Spectre, proving Oberhauser, who financed the construction of the brand new National Security Centre building with the false identity of Heinrich Stockmann, faked his own death (Moneypenny discovers a photograph of Oberhauser and White in the Vauxhall archives, and Q manages to spread online some recordings of Oberhauser and Denbigh before the events of Mexico and Cape Town). Denbigh is under arrest and Oberhauser tries to escape but he faces Bond in some final Western duel 007 enventually wins, putting two bullets in his enemy's chest while he gets shot in his shoulder. Much more faithful to the Fleming spirit IMHO.