Oberhauser

We all know that the entire concept of Blofeld being Bond's foster brother is ridiculous, but further, the idea isn't even explored, and it really only services the reveal of Blofeld's character and that's it.

Would SPECTRE, as a whole, work better had Oberhauser been his own character, and not Blofeld? I'm asking this question because I recently read an article that explored how the idea came about. Mendes went back to Fleming, specifically where it's mentioned that Bond was in Hannes Oberhauser's care temporarily. Mendes then developed the idea that a bird is forced out of his nest, and that Oberhauser could be left psychologically unbalanced because of it. I do think that alone, it is an intriguing idea. Of course, after a succession of films that have a blatantly personal angle in them, it does seem a little extraneous, however I can buy into the idea that Oberhauser began working for SPECTRE in a manner similar to how Dr. No did - he was rejected from the East and West until finally SPECTRE found a use for his skills. Had Oberhauser been a SPECTRE agent - a high ranking agent/assassin/contractor/militant - I would have liked the film a whole lot more. May have even opened up SPECTRE as an organisation a bit more in that he could have worked in the revenge department. And even then, that could easily have demonstrated how he choreographed the events of SF: employing Silva to exact revenge on MI6 in the hopes of bringing Bond down as well.

Bond's childhood was sufficiently explored in Skyfall and there was no need for anyone from 007's pre-pubescence to make an appearance in any form IMO. The universe need not revolve around James Bond like some sort of Chosen One shit from The Matrix or Star Wars or whatever.

All they needed to do was (re)introduce a shadowy, pussy-stroking (and not to mention the cat) villain and leave it at that.

Well naturally - I agree with that 100% - and that has been discussed to death, but in terms of Mendes blossoming the idea from the seed that is nudging a bird out from its nest, would Oberhauser be more accepted if he remained as Oberhauser, and not Blofeld?

In the sense that the series' most iconic villain was not being tarnished, perhaps. I still think, however, that the audience had grown weary of exploring Bond's childhood and whatnot, so bringing in any "personal" angle was doomed to fall flat four films into Craig's saga of deep grittiness.

But yes, on the whole, if they were intent on having a villain who grew up watching Dragonball Z with James Bond, I'd rather it was Oberhauser and not E. S. Blofeld.

I'm with CJB on this, yes the idea would have been slightly more palatable if it hadn't blighted somone as iconic as Blofeld....and I for one would have been happy for Blofeld and/or the name SPECTRE never to be seen again in Bond - been there and done that to the degree anything else is all but an inevitable pale shadow of itself.

But more than any of this I am sick of franchises having or trying to draw everything into neatly related links and personal investment...the world does not work like this and it has become a swaggering conceit that actually undermines and devalues the characters depicted rather than an enhancement to anything. Same applies to Comicbooks Civil War has the same absurd connections going on, same applies to Star Wars - not everyone has to be related to everyone else, Doctor Who - not everything is always about the Doctor or his companion......... FFS get over yourselves and recognise there is a universe going on out there and we really are just stumbling through it doing our best with what is thrown at us. I am far more impressed and have much more respect for how someone handles themselves when not connected intimately, those heroes defined by their selfless acts rather than this current swathe of weight and introspection which actually defines the most childish/niave of conceptions.

Ian Fleming would be rather amused that his creative successors have inflated Bond's place in his world to such absurd degrees. Bond is, after all, just a nondescript civil servant who's not good for much beyond pointing a gun and navigating a menu.

I do wonder what Fleming would think of Craig's era. I just don't understand why it needs to be so damn personal all the time.

I knew that with Craig's signing, an approach different to 'Bond gets given assignment and goes and carries it out with little or no personal consequences' was going to be taken.

And yet one of the best moments in SPECTRE was having Craig sit in M's office instead of breaking into his superior's apartment.

I feel like they've now dug themselves into a hole whereby a traditional "Bond goes on a mission, kills the bad guy, fucks the girl, the end" will seem out of place after 4 deep n' gritty escapades.

It's funny that after four films they've already dug themselves into a hole, yet Cubby managed for 16 Bond films to follow a formula, and shake up the direction without compromising the essence of the character.

Also, want to make it clear that I wish there was no personal connection between Bond and Blofeld, and that there wasn't a personal connection between Bond and villain in this. It's that there is a lot more at stake with Blofeld being Bond's brother rather than Oberhauser, who could have simply joined SPECTRE (perhaps the Revenge department) if they really insisted on this kind of dynamic.

I think that this is exactly what they wanted (so you're kind of ruining their approach ); the idea that a bird was kicked out of the nest to set up the most evil villain the Bond universe has to offer - which is Blofeld.
I mean, let's face it. This exchange of names is only there to hide the fact that Bond is hunting Blofeld. It's their big surprise moment. But it's rewarding to have a closer look.

I think this is actually not so much about Blofeld than it is about Bond. First he hides in that tunnel because his parents have died and when he finally evolves, he is no boy anymore. Then he finds Hannes Oberhauser and looses him, too. Then M comes along and says that orphans make for the best recruits. And M becomes the surrogate mother (of Silva and Bond alike).
Obvious interpretation: Blofeld has created Bond. But that's too easy.

The most evil villain of the Bond universe is the most evil villain because he has killed Bond's surrogate parents. SP is so full of dead mommies and daddies that we need to number them, honestly. The point is that Blofeld has deprived Bond of his second chance. An orphan who has found another family is extremely lucky and Blofeld has deprived him of this. The sheer tragedy of this story is enough to mark Blofeld as the most horrible villain possible. Who would deprive an orphan of his new family? Only the worst villain ever. Imagine an orphan who looses both families. That is our blunt instrument. May explain why you become a blunt instrument in the first place...Why he does not connect with his Bond girls. Why he never shows any emotion when they die.

And, I mean, if we look at it by daylight, this whole idea of, well, another "bird with a wing down", is absurd. If Oberhauser felt that he was kicked out of the nest he would kill Bond and not his father. This only shows that Blofeld was insane right from the beginning. This is not a personal angle. This is simply inborn sheer madness on side of the villain. This only strengthens the notion that Blofeld is a maniac incapable of judging right from wrong. It always gives me the creeps when he explains his reasoning because it simply does not make any sense. Every normal being would consider to kill the rival instead of killing the father and staging his own death. In the end, this story might be a nice bedtime story to instil guilt in Bond (obvious interpretation: Bond created Blofeld). But, it doesn't work with our blunt, emotionless instrument. Blofeld may well have killed his father for any other reason (like a legacy for example) and he only comes up with this brilliant fairy-tale to torture Bond.

This whole thing might be fabricated on side of Blofeld. Does it make sense that je joins SPECTRE or even founds SPECTRE to get his revenge on Bond when he could have killed him in the first place and lived happily ever after with his father?
What do you think?

You are supposed to find personal touches in the stories. You get little vignettes inside Bond's office, his personal disgusts, character traits, spartan flat, and the growing personal ties with the recurrent SPECTRE threat. Blofeld is the big villain but eventually becomes the recurrent menace Bond is driven to destroy.

Now if we could stop psycho-analyzing the PCness of everything which has been going on since GE and get rid of some folks who don't know what they're doing (P&W!) and get back to actual storytelling worth a damn EoN might not lose their audience. Because if you saw SPECTRE or even SF in a theater you were confronted by many others being confused that this was supposed to be a Bond film. But if it makes a ton of money overseas its an automatic success!
Give it a few years and people will see these have no lasting power. Whatsoever. The Misison Impossible franchise stole Bond's thunder years ago in terms of setpieces and current general audience recognition despite making only decent and passable efforts following the original 1996 masterpiece.

When they did the whole "I'm your foster brother and I hate you and we're linked and we created each other" BS I almost screamed my head off in the theater. As if they couldn't stoop any lower than making Silva be a semi-clone of TDK's Joker. (Or having the most agonizingly dull bloated overlong "action sequence" "teaser" opening...or the worst "song" ever submitted to EON.) It's as if the story comes dead last in priority and they go to Development 101 to make it. This stuff today makes the double taking MR pigeon look like a PhD of astrophysics.

hegottheboot wrote:

You are supposed to find personal touches in the stories. You get little vignettes inside Bond's office, his personal disgusts, character traits, spartan flat, and the growing personal ties with the recurrent SPECTRE threat. Blofeld is the big villain but eventually becomes the recurrent menace Bond is driven to destroy.

Now if we could stop psycho-analyzing the PCness of everything which has been going on since GE and get rid of some folks who don't know what they're doing (P&W!) and get back to actual storytelling worth a damn EoN might not lose their audience. Because if you saw SPECTRE or even SF in a theater you were confronted by many others being confused that this was supposed to be a Bond film. But if it makes a ton of money overseas its an automatic success!
Give it a few years and people will see these have no lasting power. Whatsoever. The Misison Impossible franchise stole Bond's thunder years ago in terms of setpieces and current general audience recognition despite making only decent and passable efforts following the original 1996 masterpiece.

When they did the whole "I'm your foster brother and I hate you and we're linked and we created each other" BS I almost screamed my head off in the theater. As if they couldn't stoop any lower than making Silva be a semi-clone of TDK's Joker. (Or having the most agonizingly dull bloated overlong "action sequence" "teaser" opening...or the worst "song" ever submitted to EON.) It's as if the story comes dead last in priority and they go to Development 101 to make it. This stuff today makes the double taking MR pigeon look like a PhD of astrophysics.

Well, I still think that he flat is simply empty because the MI 6 sold his at the beginning of SF...
I agree, Blofeld challenges Bond personally after all. But Bond has just blown up his secret hide-out. Well, this is personal in a way; but if someone blows up your secret headquarters you are almost expected to go after them...

Now I am confused here. Why is Silva the "semi-clone of TDK's Joker" and not Blofeld? And are we talking about the Batman universe?
Probably I am on the wrong track all together; I'm sorry.

SP was a surrender to the comic book universes that have dominated theatres over the last decade. Bond apparently needed to be "created" by a supervillain rather than be just a face in the crowd who was so ordinary he could've been named after an ornithologist.

The James Bond of Ian Fleming was shaped by personal circumstances and tragedies as all people are. He went to a good school and served in the war as men of his generation were expected to. He did his job well, but in the end, he was literally just a number and quite replaceable. I still can't fathom how the people who penned SP couldn't see how big of a shit they were taking all over the series.

Bond really doesn't need a 'universe' ... it's managed perfectly well down the years with the acknowledgement of the existence/missions of other 00 agents without an in-depth exploration of same. The difference is they have an unfortunate habit of getting killed.

I thought a "universe" means that many franchises and characters are interlinked - often including several re-boots and re-inventions (how many Robins (Batman's companion) are there? I always forget. At one time one of them actually becomes Batman...). Bond is still far from that kind of complicated brickwork. I should have asked "What Joker are we referring to, what framework and which background story do we use?" That's the brilliant aspect of The Dark Knight, every time the Joker tells his story of how he got his scars it is a different and new one...
In Bond's case it's may be something like the Moneypenny books; yet we are still far from a full-blown "universe", at least in the way DC and Marvel would define it. They seem to combine all they have now into one movie and I honestly do not get why I need Batman and Superman in the same movie.
In the end it reduces their box office income as fans of two franchises are forced to pile up in one film...

I do not get why you all hate it so much. After all, Fleming designed Bond's personal biography pretty much the same. He lost his parents when very young; he finds a father figure in Hannes Oberhauser; and finds his final father figure in M (or a mother, come on). That's it.
And, if you read my long-ish text about SF in the what if-debate of Brosnan playing the lead character in SF: Bond is a replaceable number in those films as well. That's why M gives the order to shoot. It's losing one agent or losing many agents.

Funnily enough the spin-off products never focus on the other 00 agents, but Felix or Moneypenny, don't they?

It just came to me that a birdie that falls out of the nest has good chances to become cat food.
It makes me think of FRWL when Blofeld feeds the Siamese fighting fish to his cat as a metaphor for killing Bond. Now he may well have escaped the fate of becoming cat food himself, if we keep the metaphor. Most likely just a random fun fact...

Kath wrote:

I do not get why you all hate it so much. After all, Fleming designed Bond's personal biography pretty much the same. He lost his parents when very young; he finds a father figure in Hannes Oberhauser; and finds his final father figure in M (or a mother, come on).

Except the rather major deviation of Blofeld being Oberhauser's son who grew resentful of Bond's relationship with daddy. In EONland, James Bond is literally the reason Blofeld the supervillain exists now.

In the novels, Bond's childhood was a minor detail. In the recent films, it's taken on Earth-shattering importance given a pussy-stroking Cyber Hitler is what he is because Bond was his adopted brother. It's mental.

CJB wrote:

Kath wrote:

I do not get why you all hate it so much. After all, Fleming designed Bond's personal biography pretty much the same. He lost his parents when very young; he finds a father figure in Hannes Oberhauser; and finds his final father figure in M (or a mother, come on).

Except the rather major deviation of Blofeld being Oberhauser's son who grew resentful of Bond's relationship with daddy. In EONland, James Bond is literally the reason Blofeld the supervillain exists now.

I don't really buy into that story, see above. That's why I mentioned the many stories of the Joker which change with every time he tells them. Blofeld is mad, most of all. At least this Blofeld is mad. The story of having killed his father only proves that he has been mad before. Bond has not created him. He may have triggered the inborn potential, at best. But I do not even buy that. Oberhauser would have found another trigger to become Blofeld. If it wasn't for the detested step-brother, it would have been for his first love who let him down, or whatever. He claims that he killed his father out of jealousy. He was a ticking time bomb and just needed a trigger. That trigger would have come along inevitably.
And why, for starters, do you believe Blofeld (!!) of all people?  

CJB wrote:

In the novels, Bond's childhood was a minor detail.

Agreed.

May I ask why we are always talking about Marvel? I do not really get that relation. Batman has always been the way he is. His childhood trauma is not new. I take it that this is the relation we're talking about? Little Bruce being witness to the murder of his parents who decides to become Batman when he is grown up? But this is DC, I think. So probably we're not talking about Batman at all?
And it is most of all not new. That's what made Batman Batman.
Why do you blame Marvel? I fail to see the connection.

Kath wrote:

Oberhauser would have found another trigger to become Blofeld.

Kath, the point is that Oberhauser and Blofeld should never have become the same character. There should be absolutely no connection between between Hannes Oberhauser and the greatest threat to the world since Hitler. Blofeld's antagonism for Bond stems from a professional level, in that it's Bond's constant (and professional) thwarting of SPECTRE's operations. The only time it becomes personal is when Blofeld kills Bond's wife. 

That's it. 

One can't simply justify/argue their way through the stupidity that is SPECTRE's screenplay.

Just as well Tracy came and went when she did, if she cropped up in the next film she'd likely be spun into Blofeld's mother.

FieldsMan wrote:

Kath wrote:

Oberhauser would have found another trigger to become Blofeld.

Kath, the point is that Oberhauser and Blofeld should never have become the same character. There should be absolutely no connection between between Hannes Oberhauser and the greatest threat to the world since Hitler. Blofeld's antagonism for Bond stems from a professional level, in that it's Bond's constant (and professional) thwarting of SPECTRE's operations. The only time it becomes personal is when Blofeld kills Bond's wife. 

That's it. 

One can't simply justify/argue their way through the stupidity that is SPECTRE's screenplay.

I am not justifying that decision; I try to open up new angles. You reduce that movie to one comment of Blofeld.
I invite you to accept for one second my suggestion that this hideous story was placed as such on purpose.
I am not interested in the question if the screenplay is stupid or not. After all, screenwriting is creative work. They have taken a decision and you can love or hate it. I am interested in its interpretation only. Go with me for a second and you can still loathe it.


Pardon me, I don't want to start an argument. But I think that this is still happening in SP. Blofeld goes back through all movies and points out that in every one Bond has frustrated his projects. This is not about family issues. SP is the sum up of all Craig movies. All SPECTRE operations Bond has stopped.


I have "stolen" another one of your quotes, just to make sure that we are on the same side with this. I only interpret it differently.

FieldsMan wrote:

but the entire idea that the greatest criminal organisation in the world is because of James Bond is ridiculous.

If we really accept the screenplay as the story of foster brothers we accept that SPECTRE only operates to "annoy" Bond. Isn't Blofeld playing cat and mouse with Bond according to this reading? Or has Bond "only" started SPECTRE, which is of course "much better"? That's kind of a stretch, right?

This is probably the absurdity you miss in the Craig films. I say it might be sitting in front of you and grin at you. That is a huge break with the "gritty-Realism". How likely is it that those two foster brothers end up as antagonist MI6 agent and super villain? Are we still in the terrain of Realism or are they challenging us here? Or even pulling our leg?  
I start to wonder if they wanted us to question the whole story. They have given us a hideous story; but I am not sure what we are to do with it.  

I have already said that I do not think that the Waltz-Blofeld works as head of SPECTRE. That character is too weak to convince as boss of all super villains.

I give you an alternative question:

Would Blofeld have been convincing had he not been Oberhauser?

I was just thinking about Oberhauser/Blofeld and after a moment, it just reoccured to me: WHAT THE FUCK WERE THEY THINKING?

They must've watched Austin Powers' Goldmember just prior. Even for that film, having Austin and Dr Evil related was too much.

I think Mendes simply wanted to turn Bond and Blofeld into a Cain and Able story. If the film had actually committed to the idea and executed it in a way that was dramatically satisfying, I would have let it pass. However, it feels like the film minimized it to the barest elements that it no longer served much of a purpose. You could easily edit out any references to Oberhauser and it wouldn't impact the story at all. Instead it would simply be about Bond finally meeting the man behind the organization that gave him a lot of hell throughout the years, and that's what it really should have ultimately been anyway.