Why James Bond will never fight Blofeld again

Next month, a new James Bond movie comes out, and I’m pretty excited about it. I like Bond movies more often than I don’t, but what’s really got my attention is the title: Spectre. Say no more. A title like that can only mean the return of a villain not seen since the Connery era.

The Bond films, for the majority of their history, have been mostly self-contained stories. Ongoing plot threads like the ones seen in the Daniel Craig movies are a fairly recent development. But back in the early days, every time Bond hit the screen, he was menaced by the Special Executive for Counterintelligence, Terrorism, Revenge, and Extortion. (They’ll never mention that SPECTRE is an acronym in the new movie, of course, because spy movies at some point decided they were too cool for acronyms, but they should, because it’s awesome.)

The article continues after this advertisement...

Whoever was after Bond in any given movie inevitably answered to a mysterious mastermind whose face was always concealed, identifiable only by the white Persian cat eternally in his lap. Until You Only Live Twice, that is, when Bond finally came face to face with SPECTRE’s supreme leader: Ernst Stavro Blofeld.

Why James Bond will never fight Blofeld again

Even if you’re not at all familiar with classic Bond movies, I’m willing to bet the image above is very familiar to you. But it probably doesn’t conjure up images of terrifying villainy or superspy intrigue. It probably just reminds you of this guy.

Why James Bond will never fight Blofeld again

It’s been a while since the Austin Powers movies were popular. Hell, it’s been a while since Mike Meyers was popular. But the franchise still holds a place in our collective consciousness. You can go most anywhere in the United States, extend your pinky finger and demand “one meeelion dollars!” and you can generally trust the reference will be understood.

Why am I bringing up Dr. Evil? Because, dear readers, Dr. Evil is the very reason why we will never see Blofeld in another Bond movie again.

No, never. Yes, SPECTRE is returning to the Bond franchise for the first time in decades, complete with their signature octopus signet rings. Yes, there’s been much speculation that Christoph Waltz, cast as the film’s main villain and presumably SPECTRE’s leader, will be playing Blofeld. And yes, he’s even seen wearing a very Blofeld-esque collarless jacket in the trailer. But Waltz has publically stated that his character, Franz Oberhauser, is most definitely not Blofeld, and I believe him. Because honestly, how can you possibly bring Blofeld back in a post-Austin Powers world?

Why James Bond will never fight Blofeld again

Sure, back in his day, Blofeld was the Moriarty to Bond’s Sherlock Holmes, his most persistent nemesis, and responsible for arguably the greatest personal tragedy 007 ever endured: the murder of his wife Tracy on their honeymoon. But unlike other famous arch-nemeses of pop culture, Blofeld has the odd problem of being weirdly obscure despite his massive influence. While Bond himself has remained a constant presence in pop culture, Blofeld hasn’t been seen since 1983, allowing him to become largely forgotten. So many villains since him have copied his iconography that he’s somehow become overshadowed by his own legacy.

Dr. Evil is the most obvious example, every bit as much a thinly veiled caricature of Blofeld as Austin Powers was of James Bond himself. The cat stroking, the gray suit, the bald head, the scars, the penchant for exotic lairs, doomsday weapons, and elaborate death traps, they all invoke the original image of the SPECTRE head. But a close second in infamy is Dr. Claw, rival to Inspector Gadget. Claw copied the earlier appearances of Blofeld, appearing only as a chair with its back to the audience, a single arm visible for yet more cat stroking. And his evil spy network MAD was an obvious reference to SPECTRE itself.

Why James Bond will never fight Blofeld again

But you’ll notice a distinct difference between both those examples and their source: Blofeld wasn’t a comedy character. Aside from one weird moment where he dressed as an old lady for some reason (Diamonds are Forever was not a good movie), he was a legitimate threat to be taken at least somewhat seriously by the audience. Donald Pleasence in particular gave him a subtle, creepy menace. But Dr. Evil is a comic farce, and Dr. Claw is a literal cartoon character.

In fact, of Blofeld’s many imitators, almost all of them are parodies or spoofs. The “villain with a cat” trope has become universal shorthand for comedy villains. The Great Mouse Detective, Bolt, Chip n Dale: Rescue Rangers, and hell, even the friggin’ Spice Girls movie did it. Giving your villain a fluffy cat to pet is now one of the quickest ways to inform your audience that they’re not to be taken seriously.

With that is mind, is it any wonder Spectre bowed out of bringing back the evil organization’s iconic leader? The moment a bald, scarred Christoph Waltz walks onscreen carrying a cuddly kitty cat, theaters nationwide will burst into laughter. It would take modern audiences completely out of the movie. So for the sake of maintaining immersion, it’s perhaps best that they leave Blofeld at the bottom of that smokestack Bond dropped him down in the opening of For Your Eyes Only. Tragic as it is, he’s an idea too dated to work anymore.

Which is not to say we’ll never get some version of Blofeld in the future, but at this point, he’d have to be stripped of everything that makes him unique, so what would be the point? Suppose that at the end of Spectre, Christoph Waltz does indeed reveal that his real name was Blofeld the whole time, Cumberbatch-Khan-style. It’d be a cute Easter egg, but without the cat, the look, and the hidden volcano fortress under attack by ninjas (seriously, if you haven’t seen You Only Live Twice by now, you’re missing out), he’s not really Blofeld anymore.

Now, if somehow Waltz’s character loses his hands during the movie, gets a pair of robotic replacements in a post-credits teaser and decides to start calling himself Dr. No? That would be legendary.

You may also like...

  • Thomas Ricard

    I love the idea of bringing back Dr. No as an Oberhauser who loses his hands at the end (unless the mysterious Denbigh turns out to be the Big Bad all along). And rather than the cumbersome, unpractical metal hands of the original No, these new robotic hands could be fully articulated, rotate at 360° and have concealed blades at the end of his fingers for surprise stealth attacks. I could just imagine him punishing an incompetent underling by placing his arm around them like a father calmly explaining to a child why he’s disappointed in them…then ruthlessly dislocating his shoulder, forcing them to their knees and slitting their throat.
    Only real problem would be the uncomfortable issue of Dr. No’s ethnic origins, as he’s half-Chinese & half-German in the novel*. Having him played by a white actor (though admittedly they’d get the German part right) would probably remove his outdated Yellow Peril “Fu Manchu” nature but at the price of whitewashing one of Bond’s rare prominent non-white adversaries.
    *It’s a recurring pattern in Bond villains: A lot of them are of mixed parenting, including Blofeld himself, who is half-Polish, half-Greek. Maybe it was just to add an “exotic” flavour to them, but it kind of fits the antiquated idea of people of mixed backgrounds as untrustworthy due to possible dual allegiances.

    • Jonathan Campbell

      Since Dr No was played by a white actor in Yellowface the last time he was on the big screen, probably not a good idea to just straight up make him a white guy.

      • Muthsarah

        But they’re never going to make Dr. No an East Asian villain. China has strict rules against importing movies with Asian bad guys and white good guys. EON wouldn’t even chance it.

        (EDIT: And China made both Pacific Rim and Terminator: Genisys into profitable hits despite failing horribly in North America. Both films are now getting sequels.)

        Might as well make him wholly white, that’s actually going to be much more acceptable.

      • Cameron Vale

        If they had not specified his race, I would have assumed that Dr. No was a white guy.

    • AdRobb

      All of that is just so…. STUPID. So I’m not even going to bother to elaborate why I think it so (especially this New-“Dr. No” idea that’s just a complete load of crap. Period). But I will point out that having this “Denbigh” person you speak of being THE Villain instead of “Oberhauser” would be a massive cop-out simply because “Oberhauser” is played by a Big Name, two-time Oscar-winner (both of which were coincidentally under Quentin Tarantino’s watch) while “Denbigh” is played by some guy who *I* haven’t heard of except for playing Moriarty in the Modern (UK) “Sherlock” that I didn’t watch (and don’t actually plan to).

      That’s like hyping Charlton Heston as THE Villain and then pulling a bait-and-switch with the reveal that it’s James Franciscus instead*. Hell, the TV series ’24’ actually pulled that kind of stunt with JON VOIGHT being bumped off two-thirds into Season 7 so the Finale could reveal Will Patton as THE Real Villain. That kind of heightening of viewers’ expectations only to pull the rug out from under them just to say “Gotcha!” is more like a cynical bringdown than the “clever subversion” that today’s writers/producers tend to pat themselves on the back for.

      So let’s face it, despite the public claim by Christoph Waltz that he’s *not* Blofeld, he’s probably lying and actually IS Blofeld minus all the old “trappings” (bald, scarred, stroking a White Cat) because that’s the whole point of this *modern* “Re-Imagining” malarkey. Just like we got with Black-Felix Leiter, Black-Moneypenny, and I.T. Boy-‘Q’. As the Article itself pointed out, Benedict Cumberbatch also lied about NOT being “Khan” when in fact he was. And with all this trend-following going on, why should anyone expect EON’s handling of SPECTRE’s leader be any different? But I guess we’ll know soon enough if that’s the case.

      * – “Beneath the Planet of the Apes” itself proved the point of Franciscus’s lesser status by casting him as a ‘mini-Heston’ when he filled in the Original’s “Hero”-role for most of the movie until the Real Heston’s return reduced Jim to Chuck’s sidekick. So I don’t see Waltz’s “Obenauer” (who’s apparently motivated by some “Personal Grudge” against Daniel Craig-Bond) TAKING ORDERS from the much younger “Denbigh” guy, let alone being an “equal partner” in collaboration with him.

      • Greg

        You mean like how Iron Man 3 cast Academy award winner Ben Kingsley as the main villain only to reveal that he was a decoy for the true villain Guy Pierce

  • CaptainCalvinCat

    No, he’s Franz from Oberhausen – which will make him an Oberhausener…. or Oberhauser?

  • Gallen_Dugall

    I just hope this Bond movie doesn’t try to be a Bourne movie like the last one because those Bourne movies are unintentionally hilarious and forcing that goofy shtick on Bond makes me sad.

    • Muthsarah

      Casino Royale was the Bond film that took after Bourne, because Bourne was the hot new special agent-ish action movie of the time. Similarly, Skyfall took after The Dark Knight, because the latter was itself rather Bond-ish, and thus a good fit for copying.

      Spectre…will take after Skyfall. It’s the biggest hit movie that could still be reworked into a Bond movie (Bond is not ensemble, so Marvel’s out), so why change anything?

      I just hope (probably in vain…) that they don’t do a half-assed OHMSS remake. That deserves a whole ass or nothing. Preferably nothing, since I don’t want that magnificent film overshadowed by anything in pop culture.

      But…Alps…”Blofeld”…extra focus on the main Bond girl/damsel in distress….

      “Spectre”‘s gonna at least allude to OHMSS. Probably just enough to claim some legitimacy from it (like “Star Trek” ’09 did by bringing Nimoy along), but still ignore 90% of what made that movie work. Seriously, imagine OHMSS, only Lazenby doesn’t smile once, and every action scene has tons of CGI and loud drum music.

      The “Spectre” shoot was so chaotic, Craig’s not even hiding his dissatisfaction with the franchise, the suits were apoplectic that the original script didn’t have a big enough tweest, and the marketers think they can be coy about who Blofeld is, when, ultimately, it doesn’t matter. Blofeld won’t make or break this film. It’ll make a billion, and it’ll be a dreary experience from beginning to end, because that’s what the producers want to make of it, and the mainstream audiences will eat it up. It’s gonna be grim and “edgy”, with Bond going even more rogue yet again. “Casino Royale” was a nice change of pace after the lunacy of the Brosnan era, but they just keep going further and further down this dark, dreary path. Skyfall should have marked the extreme, but that film did so well*, I have no doubt they’re gonna stick with its formula.

      * – Yes, I know that YOLT, Moonraker, and Die Another Day all made a mint, and still led to major course-corrections in the franchise. I will be deLIGHTed to see them do it again. I just don’t think they will. Skyfall was just too big a win for them not to let it ride given how huge other action franchises are. They won’t wanna be left out, so they’ll give the moviegoing public exactly what they want:

      Skyfall 2.

      • Cameron Vale

        I have no idea what people liked about Skyfall, I read positive reviews of the movie and they’re all nonsense to me. So I really don’t want a Skyfall 2.

        • Muthsarah

          Skyfall was a well-made movie on many levels (I can never HATE a movie Roger Deakins shot), but it wasn’t a lot of fun the first time, and even less fun when you know where everything’s going.

          It’s well-shot with excellent atmosphere, the action scenes are big and reasonably well-edited (in-the-moment), and the three leads all deliver good performances, but it has no levity whatsoever and so clearly wants to be in another franchise. It’s 2 1/2 hours of bleakness and plot contrivances. The theme of Bond being too old (already?) is unconvincing and goes nowhere, it’s ludicrous how Silva’s plot all works out, the whole second act feels so much like one set piece after another with a “just ‘cuz” justification tying each one together, and the climactic action scene is unintentionally funny. It’s a more-polished The World is Not Enough, but that it takes itself so damn seriously despite not making a lick of sense comes off as pretentious.

          I’ve seen it twice now, and I think I’m done with it for good. I’d sooner revisit Diamonds are Forever; I can at least convince myself that mess had a semblance of self-awareness and just wanted to be fun.

        • Gallen_Dugall

          yeah, if I hear this is like Skyfall I’m skipping it

          • CaptainCalvinCat

            If I hear, this is like Skyfall, I’m most certainly watching it. If I hear it’s like Casino Royale or Quantum of Solace, I’ll skip it.

          • Muthsarah

            Interesting. I don’t think I’ve heard a critique from a Bond fan that liked Skyfall, yet didn’t like Casino Royale. The latter, while overlong and with a few logical inconsistencies (which, as usual, wouldn’t be a problem with a film that didn’t try to be so serious), had great action scenes and the best exchange in any Bond movie, James and Vesper’s first meeting. It didn’t often feel like a classic Bond film, but they found room for bits that added an older feel – trains, a mid-century luxury hotel, Caribbean. Kept pretty close to the book too. For a modern action film, it was excellent. That said, it’s not a film I revisit very often either. Very long, mostly pretty serious. Still some limited shaky cam.

            Remember For Your Eyes Only? I wish they ‘d make another one of those. The plot is set up right at the start, makes sense and is easy to follow. It’s silly at times, but balances it with sad and/or tense moments and some logical twists. The action scenes are fun and look great. Moore is charming as usual. It’s mostly shot during the day, the Mediterranean (or possibly the Bahamas) look beautiful. Eccentric sidekicks. Capable Bond Girls. Color. Fun. I can watch that over and over.

          • Gallen_Dugall

            Reviews are in
            “It’s deeply silly but uproariously entertaining. At the end, I almost felt guilty for enjoying it all quite so much – almost.”
            http://www.theguardian.com/film/2015/oct/21/spectre-review-james-bond-is-back-stylish-camp-and-sexily-pro-snowden

          • Muthsarah

            I notice that Bradshaw never once refers to Waltz’ character as “Oberhauser”, though he dropped both “Denbigh” and “C”. Is there still an embargo on certain details…?

            I’m expecting SPECTRE to receive rave reviews. It’s gonna be well-tailored for its target audience, I won’t criticize EON for that. They want to be crowd-pleasers. They just know there’s 20x more money in appealing to new/casual fans than to us old-school grumps who don’t assume, sight unseen, that Roger Moore was the worst Bond ever.

            I’ll still see it (that was never in doubt), but I’m not expecting much. If it’s just more Casino Royale than Skyfall, I’ll be fine.

  • Cameron Vale

    So what you’re saying is that we have all been so inundated with Blofeld parodies that we’re all instinctively aware on some level that Bond has some sort of incredibly menacing primary antagonist who is bald and strokes a cat, yet the actual Blofeld has been out of circulation for so long that the remainder of our knowledge of the character is just a huge blank space that could be filled in any way that the writer desired? This sounds like a villain who should be brought back immediately.

    • Muthsarah

      I agree that the character can still work. The problem is all on the surface – so long as he doesn’t look like Dr. Evil, the casual audience won’t make that association and thus won’t have a problem taking the character seriously. Even if he’s based more on von Sydow’s version (or like Savalas, only with hair), it’d be fine.

      From what I recall in the novels, Blofeld in OHMSS didn’t look anything like Pleasence, Savalas, or Evil. I kinda got the impression he looked more like Dr. Strangelove, or Dr. Pretorius from Bride of Frankenstein. And he didn’t have a cat. I don’t think he was even described in YOLT, aside from his suit of armor.

      However….EON has shown no indication that it wants to make a Bond film that even flirts with humor, camp, or self-awareness. This new Blofeld will be unrecognizable. Which isn’t a bad thing, provided he’s still fun, somehow.

      • Jonathan Campbell

        The guy who played the unseen Blofeld in From Russia With Love and Thunderball was Anthony Dawson, who played Professor Dent in Dr No (though he was dubbed by someone else), so if they’d kept him he would have been a fairly average looking guy.

        As it happens, before they brought in Donald Pleasance to replace him, they had hired Czech actor Jan Werich. Imagine how different the world would be if Blofeld had ended up looking like this:

        https://www.mi6-hq.com/images/stills/yolt_3_280.jpg

        • danbreunig

          I’m really speechless–never knew about this until today. It’s kind of like switching out Max Von Sydow with Max(imilian) Schell.

  • Maybe the name “Blofeld” is more of a title that goes with the head of SPECTRE, just like “James Bond” is the name that goes with License to Kill #007, or like “Dread Pirate Roberts” is a name that gets passed along from person to person…

    Anyway, I’ve also wondered why Europe seems to be better at coming up with supervillains. Profesor Moriarty. Blofeld. Fantomas. Dr. Mabuse. Fu Manchu….

  • Thomas Stockel

    Good points, all. It’s like the mustache twirling villain of the silent film era becoming more and moor cartoonish, until he became Snidely Whiplash.

    I’m going to see Spectre, but I’m not sure if I’m going to like it if we’re going back to the era of trick cars. I loved Casino Royale in large part because it hearkened back to a grittier Bond.

    • Muthsarah

      Do you not enjoy any the Bonds between Goldfinger and Die Another Day? FRWL’s still the high point, as far as I’m concerned, but plenty of the silly ones still work, as long as they embrace it and don’t try to have it both ways.

      EDIT: Actually, some of the ones that try to have it both ways are also excellent. Huh….I wonder if I even have a point here.

      Some of them are terrible. Some are good. Trick cars and sexual double-entendres don’t make a good Bond film. It’s not always easy to pinpoint exactly what makes them work. A little style, a little restraint, judicious use of humor. Just don’t try to oversell it.

      • Thomas Stockel

        Well, I really enjoyed For Your Eyes Only. And I did enjoy some of the sillier movies (i.e. The Spy Who Loved Me, submarine car and all). It’s just that when it comes to Bond I like him to be a little bit more low key, that’s all. He’s supposed to be a spy, for god’s sake. By Diamonds Are Forever Tiffany Case knows who he is! It’s why I think Moonraker and Die Another Day are among the worst, with the former just being a Spy Who Loved Me knockoff capitalizing on the Star Wars craze (And you can read the recap of that movie, here, at The Agony Booth!), and the latter just being a case of ridiculous excess with a horrible theme song, forgettable villain and a James Bond with Yogi super powers.

        By the way, Die Another Day is so bad, it’s been recapped three times at this site, although The Unusual Suspect is more forgiving.

        • CaptainCalvinCat

          When a movie is recapped several times at a site – well, that’s not necessarily a sign of the flick being bad.

          After all, what is really that bad about that movie?

          • Thomas Stockel

            You’ll have to read the recaps (found here, at The Agony Booth!) to see how some of us feel about the film.

          • CaptainCalvinCat

            Welle, I did and – actually, I don’t agree with a lot of them. I think, that movie isn’t as bad as people tend to say, that it is.

          • Toby Clark

            Seconded. While it’s nowhere near my favourite of the series, there’s still a lot more that I like than there is that I don’t, and I’m much more likely to rewatch it than, say, Skyfall when I’m in the mood for a Bond movie.

          • Jonathan Campbell

            Oh ho ho…the things I could say about that movie…

            (maybe I should do a 4th recap…)

          • Muthsarah

            …Maybe pick on one of the other Brosnans for a change?

            Or fly right in the face of pop culture and cut Goldfinger down to size. It distresses me how popular perception has turned against Thunderball (I’m getting the impression greater Bondylvania may prefer Never Say Never Again), when Goldfinger deserves it more.

          • Thomas Stockel

            Man, we might not see eye-to-eye on everything, but on this we definitely agree where Goldfinger is concerned. It’s got it’s moments, but I find a lot of it is just…boring. Watching Bond watch Goldfinger, play golf with Goldfinger, follow Goldfinger, become Goldfinger’s prisoner, watch Goldfinger engage in a ton of exposition to a room full of gangsters for no reason whatsoever(!) and then murder them…
            Damn, I wonder if I have enough time to churn out a Goldfinger article before November 6…

          • Muthsarah

            Eh, don’t rush yourself. Better’s better than sooner.

            FWIW, I don’t hate Goldfinger. It’s an enjoyable watch, but the sexism is TOXIC, Bond is, yes, a rather passive character, Felix just feels…wrong, the exposition scene is one of the most obvious and clunky in any Bond movie, and, well, Kentucky isn’t exactly an exotic location for me, so it doesn’t even score points there. It’s slow, without there being a lot of eye candy to make it worthwhile, like with Thunderball.

            It’s a mediocre film with some charm around the edges. So much the inferior to FRWL, and but not as goofily fun as YOLT. The saving grace, of course, is the laser scene. Exactly four minutes long. And perfect.

        • Muthsarah

          “Well, I really enjoyed For Your Eyes Only.”

          Damn right, you did. That’s my third-favorite after FRWL and OHMSS. 😀

          Moonraker’s a fun movie, if you focus ONLY on the sets and music. Even at its worst, Ken Adam and John Barry never turn in a bad performance. Moonraker’s arguably Adam’s finest work, and close to the top of Barry’s (try the soundtrack alone, while you’re Internetting).

          “[Moonraker] just being a Spy Who Loved Me knockoff capitalizing on the Star Wars craze”

          Actually, The Spy Who Loved Me was first a You Only Live Twice ripoff. But, yeah, if you focus on the main plots, it’s the same movie three times. At least the aesthetics and locations are different each time. Sometimes, it’s best to approach the Bond series as exercises in fashion and as a travelogue. Thunderball also improves a lot if you ignore the main plot and how slowly it develops, and just focus on the Caribbean locations (or facsimiles), and how incredibly everyone’s dressed.

          The Bond movies can be appreciated in so many ways. Some of the worst-plotted movies (The Man With the Golden Gun, maybe?) can be delightful if you know what lens to view them through. The more I watch the “bad” Moores in particular, and focus on stuff other than the story, the more I like them.

          Moonraker has style coming out of its ears. Die Another Day is worthless.

          • Thomas Stockel

            I see where you are coming from where ‘Twice and The Spy Who Loved Me are concerned, I guess I never associated the two because there were two different bonds and there was a decade between them, where ‘Spy and Moonraker are, what, two years apart and they even recycle Jaws. It just felt so damn lazy, you know?

            Moonraker has style? Eh…I’m not going to get into an argument over that movie. Some people can appreciate it for it’s escapist fun, but I just can’t get into it.

          • Muthsarah

            It does indeed have style. It does NOT have a plausible story. It does NOT have good pacing. It does NOT have good acting. It does NOT have SFX that hold up. It does NOT have a decent female character. It does NOT have any energy whatsoever.

            But it’s fun in a very 70s way. Didn’t you go on and on about Space: 1999? Can you not find anything to appreciate in Moonraker? Seriously, YouTube the soundtrack. Look up images of the sets. It’s a highly flawed movie. Do not watch when sleep deprived, do not take with alcohol. But there’s plenty of beauty to it. If only they had a plot worthy of FYEO, or even TSWLM to attach to it. Maybe they went above and beyond as they did BECAUSE they knew the script was so bad. Or maybe it was just an unfortunate co-incidence (it was Ken Adam’s last Bond film) that they couldn’t bring it together to make for a beautiful, and functional entry. It’s one of the more aesthetically beautiful films in the series, I think. Even if it’s still the second-worst Moore (after Octopussy), no Moore is really THAT bad.

  • You could can still bring back Blofeld with the bold head and the scars just as long as you keep his appearance hidden for most of the movie and make sure he is played with the right amount of ruthlessness and cunning and if you do it right, you can even have the fluffy white cat at the end.

  • Fun little thing, since Ian Fleming kind of based James Bond off of himself (though obviously more self aggrandizing) it is likely that Blofeld was based off of this man

    Otto Skorzeny
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_Skorzeny

    And SPECTRE based on CEDADE
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CEDADE

    I also thought the Blofeld character already appeared at the end of Casino Royal as a goon. He is the dude with the blacked out lens over his left eye that takes Vesper hostage.
    https://youtu.be/jHvw9m4L5TU?t=6m46s

  • Gondegal

    Films now out in the UK… ****SPOILERS*** he is called and looks like Blofeld. There is a secret lair and an elaborate death trap. Also a cat, although no lap sitting stroking. Its a twist & call back, but overall its there. Obviously for the Craig era its more personal and somewhat less cartoonish; it works fairly well. The problem with Blofeld was never being Blofeld, it was the silliness they couldn’t repeat.

    • Muthsarah

      [SPOILERS FOR SPECTRE (front page hyperlink consideration). Let’s see, a little more room maybe….OK.]

      Soo-prise, soo-prise, soo-prise. Who did they actually think they were going to fool with Waltz’ public denials? First Skyfall rips off The Dark Knight’s villain “twist” shamelessly, now, of all things, the Bond series rips off the Into Darkness Khan faceplant. Who’s running EON’s marketing?

      • Gondegal

        [[[Still Spoilers]]]

        This is somewhat unfair. The denials are silly to have done, but its more of a fun reference than a plot twist; him being called and ending up looking like Blofeld isn’t central to either the plot or the character arcs.