26

Re: SPECTRE - Why it's plot twist isn't that bad

Matt S wrote:

But Bond's carefree attitude makes Blofeld seem harmless.

To me his attitude reeks of someone not easily distracted by ridiculous minutia when there are serious calculations to be made concerning escape possibilities, routes & manpower to be overcome.

Dalton & Connery rule. Brozz was cool. Craig is too.
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.QOS 4.DN 5.GF/GE 6.SP 7.FRWL 8.TB/TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT

27

Re: SPECTRE - Why it's plot twist isn't that bad

Matt S wrote:
Chriscoop wrote:
Matt S wrote:

Exactly. If it doesn't matter to Bond, why should it matter to us?

That is my take on it anyway, and this way it makes Blofeld obsessing over it for all those years the one with ALL the issues.
I like it this way,  even down to the part in the old mi6 hq when bond sees Blofeld's injury... Bond is mocking and kind of "OK whatever you fruit loop" to the "my scars will heal" statement.

It

But Bond's carefree attitude makes Blofeld seem harmless. It just seems like a feud between two brothers, where one is frustrated and the other doesn't care. The fued would be much more interesting from Blofeld's side.

It quite possibly would be more interesting,  the villains are often more interesting with their various psychoses and complicated evil plans etc. But in bond we have a man who faces down death regularly and lives by his carefree attitude. Not to forget that Blofeld has pretty much always been a calamitous character. With maybe the exception of telly savalas's rendition. Io me bond comes across as refusing to give rise to Blofeld's issues therefore not giving value to them.

It was either that.....or the priesthood

28

Re: SPECTRE - Why it's plot twist isn't that bad

Matt S wrote:
chrisisall wrote:
Chriscoop wrote:

But could it be throwaway due to bonds nonchalance?  Making Blofeld appear more unhinged?

Yeah, it's like Bond was thinking "I don't even bloody remember you..."

Exactly. If it doesn't matter to Bond, why should it matter to us?

But Bond did remember him. He noticed the familiar face at the funeral, and he fully realized at the meeting before darting out. Clearly Bond remembers.

I prefer to think of this film as Blofeld's Casino Royale\Batman Begins, as I have no doubt at all in the next one its going to be a more "classical" archetypal villain role with some plan for world domination.

Yes. Consssssiderably.

29

Re: SPECTRE - Why it's plot twist isn't that bad

armenianmovieman wrote:
Matt S wrote:
chrisisall wrote:

Yeah, it's like Bond was thinking "I don't even bloody remember you..."

Exactly. If it doesn't matter to Bond, why should it matter to us?

But Bond did remember him. He noticed the familiar face at the funeral, and he fully realized at the meeting before darting out. Clearly Bond remembers.

I prefer to think of this film as Blofeld's Casino Royale\Batman Begins, as I have no doubt at all in the next one its going to be a more "classical" archetypal villain role with some plan for world domination.

Yes, Bond certainly remembers him, but he doesn't care.

30

Re: SPECTRE - Why it's plot twist isn't that bad

I think this is either intelligence of the fans interpretation or it was purposely done. Bond not being bothered about blofeld makes him the more secure person, along the lines of" OK my parents get killed, I'm sent to live with my aunt, then sent to live with my skiing instructor and his family, I get on fine with him but he's killed by his jealous creepy son.... And it's YOU who has the daddy syndrome complex, jealousy and issues!!! Right OK then your obviously a maniac with bad wiring so get over it already" oberhauser/Blofeld is obviously deranged and Bonds seeming indifference intensifies this derangement, it makes perfect sense to me.

It was either that.....or the priesthood

31

Re: SPECTRE - Why it's plot twist isn't that bad

It's just a matter of Bond not giving him the satisfaction. Which is in keeping with 50 years of 007/villain confrontations. It's still a horrible bit of backstory that adds nothing, but 007's reaction to it is appropriate.

32

Re: SPECTRE - Why it's plot twist isn't that bad

The SPECTRE scriptwrites get ready for the Oscars

http://cdn3-www.craveonline.com/assets/uploads/2012/08/file_193323_0_Dumb_and_Dumber.jpg

33

Re: SPECTRE - Why it's plot twist isn't that bad

I agree the backstory was unnecessary and messy, why did bond have to be personally connected to Blofeld? I'm fine with the notion that quantum was one of spectres tentacles. But the personal connection???  Why?

It was either that.....or the priesthood

34

Re: SPECTRE - Why it's plot twist isn't that bad

Chriscoop wrote:

I agree the backstory was unnecessary and messy, why did bond have to be personally connected to Blofeld? I'm fine with the notion that quantum was one of spectres tentacles. But the personal connection???  Why?

'This time it's personal' is all the rage these days... ajb007/insane

Dalton & Connery rule. Brozz was cool. Craig is too.
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.QOS 4.DN 5.GF/GE 6.SP 7.FRWL 8.TB/TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT

35

Re: SPECTRE - Why it's plot twist isn't that bad

Matt S wrote:
MilleniumForce wrote:

8. It finally debunks the codename theory and the belief that Craig's movies are not in a different timeline.
There are people who believe Craig's movies are in the same world as all the other movies. This puts that to rest once and for all, by reintroducing Blofeld and clealry showing this is a new timeline. It also debunks the codename theory like SF did as Blofeld was with Bond when he was a child.

This is what I was looking forward to Spectre proving. There's now no way Craig's films could be prequels to the other Bonds, or have the other Bonds fitting between QOS and SF. There's no explanation for the gadgets in Bond's DB5 in SF, and people will just have to deal with it!

I was reading Some Kind of Hero and in that Purvis & Wade say how it makes no sense to have the Goldfinger DB5 in Skyfall but they say that the decision was made to honour the fact it was the 50th anniversary. Just one of those things you have to gloss over.

"You are about to wake when you dream that you are dreaming"

36

Re: SPECTRE - Why it's plot twist isn't that bad

Kent007 wrote:
Matt S wrote:
MilleniumForce wrote:

8. It finally debunks the codename theory and the belief that Craig's movies are not in a different timeline.
There are people who believe Craig's movies are in the same world as all the other movies. This puts that to rest once and for all, by reintroducing Blofeld and clealry showing this is a new timeline. It also debunks the codename theory like SF did as Blofeld was with Bond when he was a child.

This is what I was looking forward to Spectre proving. There's now no way Craig's films could be prequels to the other Bonds, or have the other Bonds fitting between QOS and SF. There's no explanation for the gadgets in Bond's DB5 in SF, and people will just have to deal with it!

I was reading Some Kind of Hero and in that Purvis & Wade say how it makes no sense to have the Goldfinger DB5 in Skyfall but they say that the decision was made to honour the fact it was the 50th anniversary. Just one of those things you have to gloss over.

Yes, I read that too. But people keep trying to come up with reasons for the Goldfinger DB5 in Skyfall and how Craig's Bond fits in with Connery's, when they aren't meant to fit. There are a number of people here who don't want to acknowledge the reboot and try to fit things together when it doesn't make much sense (though it may to those people).

37

Re: SPECTRE - Why it's plot twist isn't that bad

Matt S wrote:
Kent007 wrote:
Matt S wrote:

This is what I was looking forward to Spectre proving. There's now no way Craig's films could be prequels to the other Bonds, or have the other Bonds fitting between QOS and SF. There's no explanation for the gadgets in Bond's DB5 in SF, and people will just have to deal with it!

I was reading Some Kind of Hero and in that Purvis & Wade say how it makes no sense to have the Goldfinger DB5 in Skyfall but they say that the decision was made to honour the fact it was the 50th anniversary. Just one of those things you have to gloss over.

Yes, I read that too. But people keep trying to come up with reasons for the Goldfinger DB5 in Skyfall and how Craig's Bond fits in with Connery's, when they aren't meant to fit. There are a number of people here who don't want to acknowledge the reboot and try to fit things together when it doesn't make much sense (though it may to those people).

I'm glad it didn't happen but at the same time, if Connery had appeared in Skyfall as Kincade then it would have put an end to it all.

"You are about to wake when you dream that you are dreaming"

38

Re: SPECTRE - Why it's plot twist isn't that bad

Kent007 wrote:
Matt S wrote:
Kent007 wrote:

I was reading Some Kind of Hero and in that Purvis & Wade say how it makes no sense to have the Goldfinger DB5 in Skyfall but they say that the decision was made to honour the fact it was the 50th anniversary. Just one of those things you have to gloss over.

Yes, I read that too. But people keep trying to come up with reasons for the Goldfinger DB5 in Skyfall and how Craig's Bond fits in with Connery's, when they aren't meant to fit. There are a number of people here who don't want to acknowledge the reboot and try to fit things together when it doesn't make much sense (though it may to those people).

I'm glad it didn't happen but at the same time, if Connery had appeared in Skyfall as Kincade then it would have put an end to it all.

No, it wouldn't have. If that happened people would just say that Kincade was actually a former James Bond who now goes by a different name, and it would have brought up the codename theory. People are confused enough that Judi Dench plays two different Ms.

39

Re: SPECTRE - Why it's plot twist isn't that bad

I've never got how anyone can consider the codename theory?? James Bond is the son of Andrew Bond and Monique Delacroix, and he has a backstory, different actors play different versions of the same character, just as Henry Cavill and Christopher Reeve or Michael Kenton, Christian Bale and now Ben Affect. The Db5 in Skyfall could have worked without the gadgets as Bond won it in CR,  such a long franchise will need rebooting from time to time and keeping current, otherwise James bond just gets old retires and no more films for us to debate.

It was either that.....or the priesthood

40

Re: SPECTRE - Why it's plot twist isn't that bad

Chriscoop wrote:

I've never got how anyone can consider the codename theory?? James Bond is the son of Andrew Bond and Monique Delacroix, and he has a backstory, different actors play different versions of the same character, just as Henry Cavill and Christopher Reeve or Michael Kenton, Christian Bale and now Ben Affect. The Db5 in Skyfall could have worked without the gadgets as Bond won it in CR,  such a long franchise will need rebooting from time to time and keeping current, otherwise James bond just gets old retires and no more films for us to debate.

I've always had a reflexive disregard for the Codename Theory...and it seems to be popular with many of those who insist upon maintaining a rigid chronological timeline (and continuity) for all 24 films, to the point that the YOLT/OHMSS 'Blofeld not knowing Bond' wrinkle is rationalized in some convoluted way  ajb007/insane  Each Bond film is entirely self-contained, IMO, although naturally within a particular actor's tenure (especially Craig's) there are interconnections...but Bond is always occurring in the here and now. Any overthinking beyond that is a waste of energy, as far as I'm concerned. The biggest challenge to dismissing the codename theory, of course, will arise if/when the actor's race changes.* Until then, it's not really worth discussing.

*Not to start any unnecessary controversy here! Bond is the offspring of a Scotsman and a Swiss lady, and IMO some serious thought should be given to the statistical likelihood of such a person not being Caucasian, unless his hard-earned backstory is to be simply ignored, or dismissed altogether.

"Blood & Ashes"...AVAILABLE on Amazon.co.uk: Get 'Jaded': Blood & Ashes: The Debut Oscar Jade Thriller
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM

41

Re: SPECTRE - Why it's plot twist isn't that bad

Chriscoop wrote:

I've never got how anyone can consider the codename theory?? James Bond is the son of Andrew Bond and Monique Delacroix, and he has a backstory, different actors play different versions of the same character, just as Henry Cavill and Christopher Reeve or Michael Kenton, Christian Bale and now Ben Affect. The Db5 in Skyfall could have worked without the gadgets as Bond won it in CR,  such a long franchise will need rebooting from time to time and keeping current, otherwise James bond just gets old retires and no more films for us to debate.

I like that about Skyfall, how the proof that Bond is a real person with parents was brought into the films. And I like that SPECTRE finally shut down the people who think that Craig's Bond is in the same universe as any other Bonds.

42

Re: SPECTRE - Why it's plot twist isn't that bad

Loeffelholz wrote:
Chriscoop wrote:

I've never got how anyone can consider the codename theory?? James Bond is the son of Andrew Bond and Monique Delacroix, and he has a backstory, different actors play different versions of the same character, just as Henry Cavill and Christopher Reeve or Michael Kenton, Christian Bale and now Ben Affect. The Db5 in Skyfall could have worked without the gadgets as Bond won it in CR,  such a long franchise will need rebooting from time to time and keeping current, otherwise James bond just gets old retires and no more films for us to debate.

I've always had a reflexive disregard for the Codename Theory...and it seems to be popular with many of those who insist upon maintaining a rigid chronological timeline (and continuity) for all 24 films, to the point that the YOLT/OHMSS 'Blofeld not knowing Bond' wrinkle is rationalized in some convoluted way  ajb007/insane  Each Bond film is entirely self-contained, IMO, although naturally within a particular actor's tenure (especially Craig's) there are interconnections...but Bond is always occurring in the here and now. Any overthinking beyond that is a waste of energy, as far as I'm concerned. The biggest challenge to dismissing the codename theory, of course, will arise if/when the actor's race changes.* Until then, it's not really worth discussing.

*Not to start any unnecessary controversy here! Bond is the offspring of a Scotsman and a Swiss lady, and IMO some serious thought should be given to the statistical likelihood of such a person not being Caucasian, unless his hard-earned backstory is to be simply ignored, or dismissed altogether.

ajb007/martini

It was either that.....or the priesthood

43

Re: SPECTRE - Why it's plot twist isn't that bad

Loeffelholz wrote:
Chriscoop wrote:

I've never got how anyone can consider the codename theory?? James Bond is the son of Andrew Bond and Monique Delacroix, and he has a backstory, different actors play different versions of the same character, just as Henry Cavill and Christopher Reeve or Michael Kenton, Christian Bale and now Ben Affect. The Db5 in Skyfall could have worked without the gadgets as Bond won it in CR,  such a long franchise will need rebooting from time to time and keeping current, otherwise James bond just gets old retires and no more films for us to debate.

I've always had a reflexive disregard for the Codename Theory...and it seems to be popular with many of those who insist upon maintaining a rigid chronological timeline (and continuity) for all 24 films, to the point that the YOLT/OHMSS 'Blofeld not knowing Bond' wrinkle is rationalized in some convoluted way  ajb007/insane  Each Bond film is entirely self-contained, IMO, although naturally within a particular actor's tenure (especially Craig's) there are interconnections...but Bond is always occurring in the here and now. Any overthinking beyond that is a waste of energy, as far as I'm concerned. The biggest challenge to dismissing the codename theory, of course, will arise if/when the actor's race changes.* Until then, it's not really worth discussing.

*Not to start any unnecessary controversy here! Bond is the offspring of a Scotsman and a Swiss lady, and IMO some serious thought should be given to the statistical likelihood of such a person not being Caucasian, unless his hard-earned backstory is to be simply ignored, or dismissed altogether.


I generally agree with you here, with one small reservation - who says that a Scottish or Swiss person must be Caucasian???  ajb007/lol

44

Re: SPECTRE - Why it's plot twist isn't that bad

Jag wrote:
Loeffelholz wrote:
Chriscoop wrote:

I've never got how anyone can consider the codename theory?? James Bond is the son of Andrew Bond and Monique Delacroix, and he has a backstory, different actors play different versions of the same character, just as Henry Cavill and Christopher Reeve or Michael Kenton, Christian Bale and now Ben Affect. The Db5 in Skyfall could have worked without the gadgets as Bond won it in CR,  such a long franchise will need rebooting from time to time and keeping current, otherwise James bond just gets old retires and no more films for us to debate.

I've always had a reflexive disregard for the Codename Theory...and it seems to be popular with many of those who insist upon maintaining a rigid chronological timeline (and continuity) for all 24 films, to the point that the YOLT/OHMSS 'Blofeld not knowing Bond' wrinkle is rationalized in some convoluted way  ajb007/insane  Each Bond film is entirely self-contained, IMO, although naturally within a particular actor's tenure (especially Craig's) there are interconnections...but Bond is always occurring in the here and now. Any overthinking beyond that is a waste of energy, as far as I'm concerned. The biggest challenge to dismissing the codename theory, of course, will arise if/when the actor's race changes.* Until then, it's not really worth discussing.

*Not to start any unnecessary controversy here! Bond is the offspring of a Scotsman and a Swiss lady, and IMO some serious thought should be given to the statistical likelihood of such a person not being Caucasian, unless his hard-earned backstory is to be simply ignored, or dismissed altogether.


I generally agree with you here, with one small reservation - who says that a Scottish or Swiss person must be Caucasian???  ajb007/lol

ajb007/rolleyes  (sigh)

Last edited by Loeffelholz (2nd Feb 2016 06:46)

"Blood & Ashes"...AVAILABLE on Amazon.co.uk: Get 'Jaded': Blood & Ashes: The Debut Oscar Jade Thriller
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM

45

Re: SPECTRE - Why it's plot twist isn't that bad

Loeffelholz wrote:

Bond is always occurring in the here and now. Any overthinking beyond that is a waste of energy, as far as I'm concerned.

With you 100%, Loeff.

46

Re: SPECTRE - Why it's plot twist isn't that bad

Jag wrote:
Loeffelholz wrote:
Chriscoop wrote:

I've never got how anyone can consider the codename theory?? James Bond is the son of Andrew Bond and Monique Delacroix, and he has a backstory, different actors play different versions of the same character, just as Henry Cavill and Christopher Reeve or Michael Kenton, Christian Bale and now Ben Affect. The Db5 in Skyfall could have worked without the gadgets as Bond won it in CR,  such a long franchise will need rebooting from time to time and keeping current, otherwise James bond just gets old retires and no more films for us to debate.

I've always had a reflexive disregard for the Codename Theory...and it seems to be popular with many of those who insist upon maintaining a rigid chronological timeline (and continuity) for all 24 films, to the point that the YOLT/OHMSS 'Blofeld not knowing Bond' wrinkle is rationalized in some convoluted way  ajb007/insane  Each Bond film is entirely self-contained, IMO, although naturally within a particular actor's tenure (especially Craig's) there are interconnections...but Bond is always occurring in the here and now. Any overthinking beyond that is a waste of energy, as far as I'm concerned. The biggest challenge to dismissing the codename theory, of course, will arise if/when the actor's race changes.* Until then, it's not really worth discussing.

*Not to start any unnecessary controversy here! Bond is the offspring of a Scotsman and a Swiss lady, and IMO some serious thought should be given to the statistical likelihood of such a person not being Caucasian, unless his hard-earned backstory is to be simply ignored, or dismissed altogether.


I generally agree with you here, with one small reservation - who says that a Scottish or Swiss person must be Caucasian???  ajb007/lol

The populations of both countries today have percentages of Caucasians well over 90%, and the percentages would have been even higher at the time of Bond's parents' birth. Scottish and Swiss identities go far beyond nationality.

47

Re: SPECTRE - Why it's plot twist isn't that bad

On the basis that James bond can be played by a non Caucasian actor, does that mean a Caucasian actor could play Muhammed Ali in his biopic? Or would that create a terrible uproar? Some characters are very generic and could be played by any actor, but characters fictitious or not with a history and heritage should be played accordingly IMHO.

It was either that.....or the priesthood

48

Re: SPECTRE - Why it's plot twist isn't that bad

Well Joseph Fiennes is playing Micky Jackson ....l ajb007/insane

49

Re: SPECTRE - Why it's plot twist isn't that bad

Revs1972 wrote:

Well Joseph Fiennes is playing Micky Jackson ....l ajb007/insane

Which is ridiculous to say the least. I cannot believe the people behind that decision could ever think that was a good idea? Unless ofcourse they are courting controversy?

It was either that.....or the priesthood

50

Re: SPECTRE - Why it's plot twist isn't that bad

Chriscoop wrote:

On the basis that James bond can be played by a non Caucasian actor, does that mean a Caucasian actor could play Muhammed Ali in his biopic? Or would that create a terrible uproar? Some characters are very generic and could be played by any actor, but characters fictitious or not with a history and heritage should be played accordingly IMHO.

The issue typically brought up is that Muhammad Ali is a real person and James Bond is a fictional character. Real people cannot be changed all that much when portrayed in film, but fictional characters can. The question is, how much can a fictional character be changed and have it still be the same character? The basis for Bond is the character Fleming created. Would a non-Caucasian Bond who is otherwise just like Fleming's character be more or less valid than Roger Moore's James Bond? And both could be equally invalid.