C vs Blofeld: The Better Villain

MilleniumForce · February 2016

So, who was the better villain of the film?

I preferred Blofeld, but I thought Scott was excellent in the C role, there just wasn't much to do.

Revs1972 · February 2016

I guess , like many, that I was expecting him to play a "Moriarty" type character . Felt his character was underused , and his ending was a little too quick. Personally I would have liked to have seen a bit of fisticuffs between him and Q, with Q surprising us with a little martial arts

UNCLE27 · February 2016

I was surprised that M struggled quite so much with C given that in Skyfall it was established that M was ex-SAS.

But Waltz was brilliant as Blofeld.

Gassy Man · February 2016

Neither was really used all that much -- they mostly took credit for the villainy in the film.

HarveyMushman · February 2016

I didn't go much on Andrew Scott at all I'm afraid, very much in his Moriarty role, I half expected Sherlock Holmes and Dr Watson to appear in the background. For me he was the biggest downside to the plot as he just wasn't "bad enough" and Christoph Waltz could definitely have moved it up a few notches on the maniacal scale, he's certainly capable, he started well but the lab scene was a bit weak.

sniperUK · February 2016

Can you take a man in his 50s wearing no socks seriously

)

Thunderpussy · February 2016

Depends on the porno, you're watching.

I think it was an Homage to Sanchez from LTK.
he wasn't fond of socks either. I'd love to hear Waltz's take on the character, sometime in a
commentary.

broadshoulder · March 2016

Revs1972 wrote:

Personally I would have liked to have seen a bit of fisticuffs between him and Q, with Q surprising us with a little martial arts

Oh dear god

Revs1972 · March 2016

{[]

Matt S · March 2016

broadshoulder wrote:

Revs1972 wrote:

Personally I would have liked to have seen a bit of fisticuffs between him and Q, with Q surprising us with a little martial arts

Oh dear god

I'm with you. I would have liked to have seen C mess up and Blofeld take him out, like Blofeld took out Osato. Does Blofeld kill anyone in SP? C doesn't, and that would have made him better (or badder) too.

Gala Brand · March 2016

I wasn't impressed with either one. I thought Waltz was criminally underused.

Loeffelholz · March 2016

Gala Brand wrote:

I wasn't impressed with either one. I thought Waltz was criminally underused.

Generally agree; although my caveat would be that both were underused, and each deserved his own film, really, even if C would've ended up being someone like Emilio Largo to Waltz's ESB in the first of the Modern Era (Post-Reboot) Blofeld Trilogy. But I'm not paid to make those high-falootin' decisions

hehadlotsofguts · March 2016

C, for me fell flat as a villain. (No pun intended.) I liked his scrap with M, but i didn't find him threatening. I liked Waltz as Blofeld.His delivery of lines in the boardroom scene reminded me of Eric Pohlmann. Both of them sound sinister.

broadshoulder · March 2016

hehadlotsofguts wrote:

C, for me fell flat as a villain. (No pun intended.) I liked his scrap with M, but i didn't find him threatening. I liked Waltz as Blofeld.His delivery of lines in the boardroom scene reminded me of Eric Pohlmann. Both of them sound sinister.

C was a bureaucrat. A man who thought he could get his way over the boardroom. The "he went to school with the foreign secretary" was very telling. But is no less dangerous then Blofeld. He had the powers to shut MI6 down - so make M jobless.

There was some recourse on this board that "why didn't we see C and M scrap" Oh dear. Do you honestly think someone from a Ministry should scrap with M. Maybe in some godawful Hollywood blockbuster but not this

I though the rather bitchy interplay between M and C was engaging and plausible...

Thunderpussy · March 2016

Yes, I enjoyed the word play between them. C was like an evil
Sir Humphrey.

Gala Brand · March 2016

Loeffelholz wrote:

Gala Brand wrote:

I wasn't impressed with either one. I thought Waltz was criminally underused.

Generally agree; although my caveat would be that both were underused, and each deserved his own film, really, even if C would've ended up being someone like Emilio Largo to Waltz's ESB in the first of the Modern Era (Post-Reboot) Blofeld Trilogy. But I'm not paid to make those high-falootin' decisions

I agree that C should've had his own movie. Blofeld could have deliberately let slip that Spectre had a man inside British Intelligence and then Bond 25 could've been the Mole Hunt + Blofeld's escape from prison.

chrisisall · March 2016

Gala Brand wrote:

I agree that C should've had his own movie.

That little C***?
No way; he died a fitting stupid death.

Matt S · March 2016

The problem is that there was practically equal focus on C and Blofeld. Bond fights Blofeld and M fights C. There was too much going on in the film, and it makes the characters compete with each other. We're only having this discussion because there's a fault with the film. A better film wouldn't leave us comparing the two. We don't compare Largo and Blofeld, nor do we compare Osato and Blofeld. One person should be running the show, not two people running their own shows.

chrisisall · March 2016

Matt S wrote:

The problem is that there was practically equal focus on C and Blofeld. Bond fights Blofeld and M fights C. There was too much going on in the film, and it makes the characters compete with each other. We're only having this discussion because there's a fault with the film. A better film wouldn't leave us comparing the two. We don't compare Largo and Blofeld, nor do we compare Osato and Blofeld. One person should be running the show, not two people running their own shows.

Whatever- I was happy with it all. -{

broadshoulder · March 2016

Matt S wrote:

The problem is that there was practically equal focus on C and Blofeld. Bond fights Blofeld and M fights C. There was too much going on in the film, and it makes the characters compete with each other. .

yes, its that old staple of drama.....conflict

"Too much going on in the film" - yes, if you have the attention span of a jellyfish

They've been trying to big up M since TWINE (maybe since LTK) Sometimes they have been successful. When you have an actor with the statue of Ralph Fiennes you have to give him something meaningful. The snarling over the boardroom with C was good and authentic.

Loeffelholz · March 2016

chrisisall wrote:

Gala Brand wrote:

I agree that C should've had his own movie.

That little C***?
No way; he died a fitting stupid death.

Well, he could/should have been better developed.

Matt S · March 2016

broadshoulder wrote:

Matt S wrote:

The problem is that there was practically equal focus on C and Blofeld. Bond fights Blofeld and M fights C. There was too much going on in the film, and it makes the characters compete with each other. .

yes, its that old staple of drama.....conflict

"Too much going on in the film" - yes, if you have the attention span of a jellyfish

They've been trying to big up M since TWINE (maybe since LTK) Sometimes they have been successful. When you have an actor with the statue of Ralph Fiennes you have to give him something meaningful. The snarling over the boardroom with C was good and authentic.

Yes, there is conflict. There are two stories that conflict with each other for their prominence in the film. And the two conflicts within the film are watered-down because of it.

And I don't appreciate you calling me a jellyfish.

Thunderpussy · March 2016

I don't think he was "calling" merely "comparing " .

( only joking, badly )

Miles Messervy · March 2016

Matt S wrote:

broadshoulder wrote:

Matt S wrote:

The problem is that there was practically equal focus on C and Blofeld. Bond fights Blofeld and M fights C. There was too much going on in the film, and it makes the characters compete with each other. .

yes, its that old staple of drama.....conflict

"Too much going on in the film" - yes, if you have the attention span of a jellyfish

They've been trying to big up M since TWINE (maybe since LTK) Sometimes they have been successful. When you have an actor with the statue of Ralph Fiennes you have to give him something meaningful. The snarling over the boardroom with C was good and authentic.

Yes, there is conflict. There are two stories that conflict with each other for their prominence in the film. And the two conflicts within the film are watered-down because of it.

I agree with Matt on this. In interviews, Craig eluded to the fact that they threw everything they could think of into this film, and it showed. It also ended up being the film's biggest weakness. Having two parallel villains that are apparently working together, but never interact, gave the film a disjointed quality. Neither villain is given the chance to shine because there is too much competing focus. That said, C's motivations, while somewhat unclear, still seem more plausible to me than Blofeld's. Therefore, I think C was actually the better villain.

HalfMonk HalfHitman · March 2016

This movie sorely needed a SPECTRE meeting scene after the opening credits - one where Andrew Scott is present. We then follow him out of that meeting into Whitehall, right into M's office, where M is chewing out Bond for the Mexico incident. Now we know C is SPECTRE and the characters don't. Make him the ticking bomb under the table, instead of a limp plot twist.

There are so many other problems with the script, but C might have been developed into something more interesting if they'd approached him in more of a Largo/Thunderball fashion.

Matt S · March 2016

HalfMonk HalfHitman wrote:

This movie sorely needed a SPECTRE meeting scene after the opening credits - one where Andrew Scott is present. We then follow him out of that meeting into Whitehall, right into M's office, where M is chewing out Bond for the Mexico incident. Now we know C is SPECTRE and the characters don't. Make him the ticking bomb under the table, instead of a limp plot twist.

There are so many other problems with the script, but C might have been developed into something more interesting if they'd approached him in more of a Largo/Thunderball fashion.

I like that we're not supposed to know that C is SPECTRE, though once Andrew Scott was cast and the title was announced to be Spectre, it was obvious he was going to be a SPECTRE agent.

broadshoulder · March 2016

Miles Messervy wrote:

Matt S wrote:

broadshoulder wrote:

yes, its that old staple of drama.....conflict

"Too much going on in the film" - yes, if you have the attention span of a jellyfish

They've been trying to big up M since TWINE (maybe since LTK) Sometimes they have been successful. When you have an actor with the statue of Ralph Fiennes you have to give him something meaningful. The snarling over the boardroom with C was good and authentic.

Yes, there is conflict. There are two stories that conflict with each other for their prominence in the film. And the two conflicts within the film are watered-down because of it.

I agree with Matt on this. In interviews, Craig eluded to the fact that they threw everything they could think of into this film, and it showed. It also ended up being the film's biggest weakness. Having two parallel villains that are apparently working together, but never interact, gave the film a disjointed quality. Neither villain is given the chance to shine because there is too much competing focus. That said, C's motivations, while somewhat unclear, still seem more plausible to me than Blofeld's. Therefore, I think C was actually the better villain.

You you wants executions ala Smersh. One button and he's frazzled.

I thought we'd moved on this..

'C' was fine. As I said a fully paid up member of the establishment. One who shares 'visionary' qualities. Wants the agencies office really not to compete with Blofeld's spectre. in fact he is a competing member of spectre - one which is on our side of the fence..

Blofeld for 007, 'C' for M. They compliment each other perfectly.

I wonder how many members of this Tory government are actually members of Spectre. Ian Duncan Smith for one...

superado · March 2016

I agree with what a lot of you guys are saying that the 2 plot layers of C and Spectre seem disjointed. From the beginning with 1st sight of the Spectre ring in the Mexico City PTS, we know that Spectre is business a usual as an ominous and dangerous crime organization. In contrast, apart from the nefarious (but newly made legal) surveillance witnessed by MI6 being perpetrated against them, C presented himself as a bureaucratic bully. Maybe C should have been made to do something more sinister in the middle of the movie, like a cold-blooded killing of a staffer who accidentally discovers the Spectre plot, etc., similar to Brian Cox’s character in the Bourne Supremacy.

I think there are 2 kinds of villain dynamics in the Bond movies, one in which the main villain and his/her subordinates directly interact at some point in the film (in FRWL, a visual connection is made even with Morzeny and the hierarchy, though he was only a secondary henchman). Then, there are the times when the villain association is implied through dialog and the members do not actually meet, like Dr. Kaufman in TND even though he and Stamper communicate on radio and talk about each other; to me it seemed lacking and the connection was disjointed. In SP, as it’s been said, at some point it should have been shown how C is deep in the organization, ideally in direct interaction with Blofeld. Better still, a scene in which Blofeld orders his instant execution would have been fantastic.

C vs Blofeld: The Better Villain

Comments