MovieChat Forums > Diamonds Are Forever (1971) Discussion > They dropped the ball on Blofeld.

They dropped the ball on Blofeld.

posted 12 years ago by Skye_Reynolds
29 replies | jump to latest

Charles Gray was a good choice to play Blofeld, but damn this film screwed the character up.

James Bond has thwarted numerous SPECTRE plots, he's killed several of their agents, and he's escaped capture at the hands of Blofeld on more than one occasion. Meanwhile, Blofeld is the terrorist mastermind responsible for the death of Bond's wife. These two should should be inclined to kill each other on sight, but instead, either man seems to have only a passing regard for the other or what they're capable of. I know that they needed to keep Bond alive, but there is no reason why Blofeld wouldn't have shot Bond on sight. Bond burned a Blofeld double alive in the pre-credit opener and will stop at nothing to kill the real one. But instead, Blofeld explains his plans, puts 007 on an elevator, and has his henchmen place him in an unfinished pipeline in the hopes that no one will notice him until it's too late. What? Was he worried about getting blood on the carpet? It's not his carpet! It's Willard Whyte's.

But the absolute worst part of the film, for me anyway, was the anticlimactic finish. Bond and Blofeld were supposed to have a submarine chase which built to a fight to the death inside of a salt mine. That is awesome, but unfortunately they didn't have the money for it. So instead, Bond knocked out the crane operator and smacked Blofeld against a wall while he was trapped in a mini-sub. He never even identified himself as Blofeld's attacker. It's an off-screen "death" which was obviously meant to set up to another film, but then EON lost the rights to the character. And even if they hadn't, they really needed to end the Bond/Blofeld rivalry here.

This movie was just such a waste of potential.

[–] Abyss47 12 years ago

I agree with you, but after years of watching this series over and over, I still find this one entertaining in spite of its flaws. It's basically a comedy.

[–] Skye_Reynolds 12 years ago

That's one really good thing about this series, even the worst of the films have redeemable aspects to them. I enjoyed the fight with Peter Franks, I liked the opening sequence, Charles Gray had a few good lines in spite of his character's mistreatment, Bambi and Thumper were fun, etc.

[–] Ronsin1976 12 years ago

Yup I actually liked the Peter franks fight, Bambi and Thumper were hot. The gay hitmen were funny. The Bond girl wasn't the greatest though. I actually believed they could have done more with Blofeld seeing that this was his "last" official outing in a Bond, discounting Never Say Never Again.

[–] Skye_Reynolds 12 years ago

I think that, once they realized that they couldn't afford to do the big chase sequence, they decided on letting Blofeld live so that they could settle things in the next film, but both Sean Connery and the rights to Blofeld were gone by that point. When next we saw Bond, he looked like Roger Moore and was dealing drug trafficking and voodoo in Harlem and South America. No closure.

But yeah, the henchmen and women were fun and some of the action sequences were well handled. I would have liked it better though if the assault on Blofeld's fortress had been among them.

[–] Ronsin1976 12 years ago

Yeah I agree. It was a shame they could not have had Blofeld go out more respectively, he and/or SPECTRE figured on every movie until Moore's tenure.

[–] pawtrax67 12 years ago

The thread should be called:

They dropped the ball on Diamonds are Forever.

The whole movie was bad.

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] MooseNugget 8 years ago

I agree with the OP. The way Bond "kills" Blofeld both times in this film are really anticlimactic when you think about why he wants to find Blofeld so bad at the beginning of the film.

And they never do explain in the movies that Blofeld changes his appearance and personality. I mean he looks so different from OHMSS to DAF. You'd figure they would have someone that looked like Telly Savalas in the beginning of the film and had a big revel later with Charles Gray reveling he's really Blofeld.

But for whatever reason the filmmakers got really lazy and made a poor follow up to OHMSS. And as a huge fan of the series that's really disappointing.

Oh well they gave it another shot and had the fun opening at the beginning of For Your Eyes Only.

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] MooseNugget 8 years ago

Well I'm thinking more in terms of how Bond acts. He doesn't seem too angry at the guy who's reasonable for his wife's death.

At the climax of the movie he's really just clowning around with him. Maybe I got this wrong but it's anticlimactic to me.

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] MooseNugget 8 years ago

I don't think he was on any kind of mad rampage.

Honestly with just how goofy this whole movie is it probably would have been really off anyway if Bond got some kind of real retribution for what Blofeld did to his wife.

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] MooseNugget 8 years ago

You gotta be kidding me 

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] thylacine80 8 years ago

it's not a poor followup,

OHMSS was a realistic story about a human secret agent falling in love and seeing his wife die before his eyes.
DAF is a comedy with cartoon characters, funny James Bond and no link with the previous movie.

That's what I call a a poor followup.

it's just more lighthearted than OHMSS

I don't think making Blofeld -long rival of James Bond- a drag is just "lighthearted"... It's a scenearistic crime.

watch the beginning of DAF. Bond is pissed and kicking everybody's ass to find Blofeld

Yeah, but that's about it. After that scene, Bond is just not angry enough toward his wife's murderer. Tracy is never mentioned, and Moneypenny makes silly jokes about her marrying Bond.
The film ignores the events of OHMSS, except if you want to include the first 2 minutes by imagining it is related.

there's nothing here as goofy as the jetpack scene in thunderball

Of course, every Bond movie has a goofy scene or two. But they are just too many in DAF. Too much, too many, too often.

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] thylacine80 8 years ago

no link to the previous movie? blofeld trying to disguise his appearance cause he knows bond is trying to kill him in revenge.

That's what you suppose. In the previous movie, Blofeld changed his appearance as well, and it wasn't because Bond was "trying to kill him in revenge"...

In every film, Blofeld changed his appearance because the change of actor.
It is not said or even implied that he's "trying to disguise cause he knows bond is trying to kill him in revenge".

You make up that whole "revenge" story because you know what happened in OHMSS. But the truth is that they forgot about everything happened in the previous movie to make a comedic film.

and bond is not supposed to be dark drama

Who said that ?
Fleming created a dark and lonely secret agent, filling his life with alcohol and conquests.
Of course it's supposed to be dark !

Gags, cfun and gadgets are part of the thing, but not to the point where the main villain is dressing as a drag, where the girl is stupid or when nothing at all is realistic.

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] MooseNugget 8 years ago

u didn't think that jetpack scene was stupid? how about turning connery into a Japanese man in YOLT?

Well maybe you thought that was still. And when you put a little thought into yeah it is. But it was a cool scene.

That's different from DAF. Like Bond making his getaway on a moon buggy is funny. I laughed at that. But its ridicules.

And he's supposed to be a spy. He's in Japan. It's in his interest to not draw attention to himself.

no link to the previous movie? blofeld trying to disguise his appearance cause he knows bond is trying to kill him in revenge. and bond is not supposed to be dark drama

You're right Blofeld does change his looks and personality to hid himself. But that's never explained in the movies. You just have to make assumptions.

And I think Bond stories do get dark. It obvious things are changed from the books to the movies. I'm fine with some of the light hearted Bond film. Heck I thought this film was alright. I gave it a 6/10.

nothing is realistic in any bond movie. go watch a movie about the holocaust if u want dark heavy drama



I think the best example would be going from Moonraker to For Your Eyes Only.

Moonraker was this goofy crazy film. The only Bond film you're going to find that's more out of this world is the first Casino Royal. And that wasn't even part of this series.

While on the other hand the film that follows it For Your Eyes Only almost seems like it could happen in real life. The only silly thing I can remember is the motorcycle growing spikes out it's tire.

James Bond movies can be mostly realistic. They can be goofy too. I mean The Spy Who Loved Me was one of the best ones.

[–] thylacine80 8 years ago

The only silly thing I can remember in For your eyes only is the motorcycle growing spikes out it's tire.

I like this movie as well, as I think it was a serious return to basics. But unfortunately, the spikes are not the only silly thing I remember...

What about THAT STUPID PARROT talking with THAT STUPID MARGARET TATCHER LOOKALIKE ?????

😱

[–] thylacine80 8 years ago

nothing is realistic in any bond movie.

You're right, and that's cool to have a mix between fun stuff and realistic things.

But in DAF, the fun and goofy scenes are just too numerous, compared to the realistic ones.

go watch a movie about the holocaust if u want dark heavy drama

I don't want "dark heavy drama", but I want James Bond as it is : a troubled and lonely spy living on the edge and having some fun.

[–] MooseNugget 8 years ago

I totally forgot about that lol

It's been a few years since I seen the film.

[–] franzkabuki 12 years ago

"Damn this film screwed the character up".

It´s a screwy character.

"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

[–] Torni3945 9 years ago

Its to bad they couldn't get Donald Pleasence to come back to play Blofeld again a few more times after You Only Live Twice. To think he played Dr. Loomis in five Halloween movies all of them terrible accept the first two not including Halloween III Season Of The Witch.

[–] bh_tafe3 8 years ago

I think he should have died at the start of the film. Bond makes some quip, avenges his wife's death and then gets on with being a spy.

The biggest problem with the antagonist is that he could have been any specter operative and didn't need to be Blofeld at all. Especially not being played by a third different actor.

[–] domester82 8 years ago

Original canon Bond (Not Craig canon Bond) does eventually get his revenge for Tracy. The beginning of FYEO. He drops Blofeld in a chimney , and we even see him mourning at Tracy's grave beforehand.

Or we could say that the order of events goes like this: YOLT>DAF>OHMSS>FYEO. Watch all of Connery's movies in sequence, and then watch OHMSS and it might make more sense. Bond is even still in Japan at the beginning of DAF

[–] crood 8 years ago

One way to look at it is they're both essentially dead inside. They take nothing really personally, anymore. It's all about one upsmanship and proving to each other who is better. Note how Blofeld doesn't even consider Bond (and England) worthy of threatening.

Bond is back to womanizing and flirting with Moneypenny. He doesn't even bat an eye about her "diamond, in a ring" statement.

[–] HorrorMetal (833) 5 years ago

In Blofeld's last appearance in the novels by Ian Fleming (specifically You Only Live Twice), Bond finally finishes off his arch nemesis by strangling him to death. How cool would it have been to see that at the end of this movie? Would have been way better than the smacking around of the submarine, which was rather lame and anticlimactic.