Well spotted, but both examples are foreshadowing, rather than telegraphing. The former creates the theme and context for what’s to come - that’s good writing. The latter gives away the ending by planting obvious clues, usually that’s down to inept or lazy writing, such as the tribbles scene; ie when the life saving blood is administered to Kirk you find yourself thinking “Oh, that’s why that scene was there!”
If only that message had been passed on to whomever decided to tag on to the end of Spectre that the villains of the 3 previous movies where part of Blofelds grand plot all along.
But only one of those wasn’t obvious, and stated at the time. The unnamed organisation was clearly SPECTRE, only named Quantum in the final moments of QOS so as to pacify those who didn’t know that Quantum meant, and that EON went with when with they didn’t want sued. This was discussed in depth on old CBN at the time - the question of whether this would be brought up was even brought up at Skyfall’s announcement.
I disagree. Eon wanted to use spectre but weren’t allowed so settled for Quantum. So in that regard they are indeed Spectre.
But such behind the scenes to and fro shouldn’t be mistaken for, or allowed to be a including in Story onscreen.
Spectre is not mentioned, or alluded to, nor a connection between Silva and Craig’s previous antagonists mentioned until it suits Eon legally in Spectre. It’s clearly a retrofitted connection and a very weak link in Spectre.
Had they planned this all along and seeded clues to Spectre and Blofeld throughout Craig’s tenure it would’ve been a sublime arc. A few posters and a line of dialogue from Waltz falls far short.
Why not? If they feel it fits the story they want to tell they can do what they like. It worked for me as a viewer, and as that is the full extent of my relationship with the film that makes it more than fitting.
Because most viewers know or care about the off screen legal wrangling over ‘spectre’ and that quantum is essentially a filler until the rights to spectre are won.
So if knowledge of off screen issues are nessisary to make a finale reveal work then it won’t fully work for most viewers.
For the non-fan everyday film goer it would be elliptical at best. By virtual of some posters are they’re shaken by the revelation that it was all connected. I doubt it; confused if anything.
It’s like art that only works if you read the blurb on wall beside it. I’d suggest that good art shouldn’t need explaining because that’s the whole point of it - it works on its own merits. Why shouldn’t great cinema obey the same rules?
The reveal of blofeld running silva etc. still works but only in the broadest terms. The multi-film nuance that such a reveal should comprise of was absent because it was never there in the first place.
There is the opening title sequence that tries to connect all the previous films. In CR and QoS it’s clear Mr. White is not the #1, so in that respect I’ll buy the connection. With Silva, less so. He does mention “fixing an election in Uganda”, which is where we first see Mr. White, but if he is connected to SPECTRE he’s gone rogue in his agenda to kill M.
I view Craig’s first four movies as parallel to Connery’s–a first introduction, the second about the evil organization, a third villain independent of the organization, and a big bloated SPECTRE movie.
And like it or not, the art of cinematic story telling is now as much of a corporate financial one as it is a creative one. Look at the Disney/Fox/Comcast buyouts and EON’s own financial difficulties producing movies on a timely basis.
I would have bought the ret-con if it simply had been done much more elegantly.
One of the most disappointing ideas in SPECTRE, in my mind, is Blofeld hanging up the print-outs of the previous villains in the abandoned Mi6 building.
It looks so desperately low-tech, especially for Blofeld who prides himself in building up a network to hack into everyone.
Also, it would not have been necessary. Just having Blofeld tell Bond that he is the author of all his pain, alluding to LeChiffre etc. would have been much more effective. Bond (and the audience) should have asked themselves: is this the truth or does he just play on my insecurities?
It’s always been show Business - I’ve never questioned that. Just that whatever the audience need to understand the plot of a movie can’t depend upon them reading ‘trade mags’.
It has to be up there on the screen. That’s got nothing to do with the corporate or financial aspects, it’s just the common sense of storytelling.
How well it worked is personal, I thought it worked, you didn’t, many reviewers thought it worked, some people on twitter didn’t. There are no hard rules for how well anything is going to play - no matter what you do, someone is going to have AN ALL CAPS TIRADE ON TWITTER ABOUT HOW THEY F***ED THE WHOLE FRANCHISE FOREVER so, they should do what they like in that moment comfortable in the knowledge that, love or loath, the next Bond movie will be a whole new choice. It’s how we can have You Only Live Twice, On Her Majesty’s Secret Service and Diamonds Are Forever all being together, equally loved and reviled by different people.
I just wonder: was the ret-con always part of the scripts or an add-on when the finale was completely reworked?
I can’t remember whether Oberhauser was already author of all the pain in the drafts I read.
"Mr. Hinx, before you get on the train, would you Xerox the head shots of our Quantum people and hang them up around MI6? Thanks,
"Mr. Hinx, since you haven’t reported back to me - I will print them out and hang them up myself. Your steel thumbnails would have come in handy for that but obviously you have something better to do. But, hey, don’t claw your eyes out. - Ernst.
P.S. I´m also still awaiting a full report on the train disaster. I suspect you just did not find the target amongst the many passengers? Or didn’t you pack your white dinner jacket and therefore weren’t allowed in the dining car? I hope at least you haven’t hurt your nails."
Surely the latter! At least then they have an excuse.
I just watch “Catch Me If You Can” starring Leonardo DiCaprio and Tom Hanks. It is a good true to life story. Like a James Bond of Fraud.
The film is fantastic, I’d recommend The Sting if you enjoyed it - clearly an influence for its style and tone.
I’d be interested to know that as well. I can’t imagine that they would have worked that angle into the African Warlord as Blofeld angle that Logan was originally going for. Not that they couldn’t have, but it just would seem too much of a coincidence for some seemingly random warlord on a large continent like Africa that Bond happens to be going after and he just happens to turn out to be the author of all of Bond’s pain.
Actually…it’s a dreadfully cheesy line bordering on kitsch, no? If somebody said this to me I’d most likely die of laughter.
It is. It worked for the trailer as a way of giving Waltz’s Blofeld some semblance of menace, but it didn’t have nearly the impact in the film.
The best line in the film was still Mr White’s. Topping that for Blofeld must have been tricky, no doubt. But this ‘author’ thingy rings like it was the first part of a joke whose punchline got lost.