It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
But let's not forget that this could be disinformation, and Waltz is still playing Blofeld. Maybe Eon want to keep his presence in the movie a mystery, until he makes a belated appearance at the climax of B25?
Anyway, thanks @ColonelSun for contributing your own theories. Your views and opinions are like gold dust on these forums.
The other SP people are going to be quizzed on this when they are out in public now and it will be interesting to hear their responses. Seydoux in particular but also Fiennes.
The bottom line (so it would appear) is that Waltz is no longer working for Eon, which is why he's no longer concerned about telling a member of the press the truth. The cat would surely come out of the proverbial bag eventually, anyway. Especially when all it would take is one glance at his future working schedule on IMdB to see that he hadn't been cast for B25. Personally, I respect Waltz for setting the record straight at the earliest possible opportunity.
A bit. But they could make it clear through quick little flashbacks and someone mentioning his plastic surgery or whatever. And since his defining characteristic outside of the cat, scar and slaphead is that he's always changing (in the films with the actors but in the books he's basically a whole new person every time, that's how he's able to avoid being arrested) I'd be fine with it.
I also don't expect them to address the brotherly connection at all anyway. Blofeld can just be pissed at Bond for taking him down in SP, Bond can be pissed at Blofeld for the deaths of Vesper, M and Madeline(?). No need to remind the audience of the brother thing. That's one aspect of SP that I'd be quite happy if they swept it under the rug.
The problem is I'm not sure EON would recast. Waltz not being in it points more towards a new villain imo. But I hope it's still Blofeld.
Another point regarding this possible recast that is being discussed here. In other scenarios where we have a recast of a character, it's because of some disagreement about money (Terence Howard for Iron Man 2) or the actor has a problem with returning (Katie Holmes for TDK). Here Waltz has pretty much telegraphed that he wanted to return. So to suggest it's being done for 'tradition' will appear strange to the general public imho. Moreover, this is Craig's last, so a recast for one film which would by definition (if Blofeld is back) follow a tightly scripted continuity again makes little sense. Especially when people like Christensen were brought back.
It's more likely that Blofeld does not feature, imho.
Blofeld could still ultimately be the man pulling all the strings in B25, but the audience see a different villain taking the centre stage, such as a Kronsteen or a Emilio Largo type character. To get around not using Waltz's voice, they could simply use a voice-distortion device.
1. Waltz is lying and will reprise Blofeld as a cameo in B25, to the shock of everyone.
2. Waltz is lying and will indeed be Blofeld, and receive credits, as the main villain in B25.
2. Waltz is suggesting that Blofeld is NOT in Bond 25 and that a new Blofeld will be cast along with a new Bond for B26. (But how would he know that?)
I agree with @bondjames here: no way would there be a new actor as Blofeld in B25.
So I don't see a Blofeld recast working for modern audiences, who have been conditioned to expect tight continuity in movie franchises, and I don't think EON would attempt a recast either. If they really wanted to bring Blofeld back, it would be a no-brainer to cast Waltz, for numerous reasons (including the fact that he was and still is an Academy award-winning "catch" for the series, just like Bardem was).
I do worry that audiences being so literal-minded about continuity will lead to another "Bond Begins" reboot with the next actor. One reason I'm happy to see Craig returning. But that's neither here nor there at the moment.
You've hit the nail on the head with regards to Waltz no longer having any obligation to Eon, @bondjames. That's why I'm happy that he's come out and made it clear he's not been invited back. Personally, I don't need nor want to wait for the official drip-feed of Eon news. These impromptu announcements were the way we used to get our information in the pre-digital age, mostly through newspaper snippets and not some big, orchestrated media event.
You also raise a good point about Terence Howard and Katie Holmes not coming back for their respective roles in their own sequels. I certainly don't think audiences will care too much if the end product is great and the replacement actor gives a good performance.
Brilliant touch.
Epic clusterf-bomb doesn't even come close to describing their overall strategy for the Craig era.
Let's just dial back a decade to the end of 06. CR and DC had smashed it out of the park and was a critical and commercial hit. The world, to quote Arthur Daley, was their lobster.
So what did they do next? For better or worse they decided to make a direct sequel. They couldn't use SPECTRE at this stage as they didn't own the rights so they created Quantum, largely it seems to make a feeble link to the title (despite the title being nonsensical in the context of the terrorist organisation), as a proto SPECTRE but given they had no way of knowing when McClory would die you have to assume they did it with the idea of building up to something in the next film.
OK they were hamstrung by the writer's strike (perhaps we could say this is truly the author of all the subsequent pain?) so things probably didn't pan out quite how they wanted but nonetheless when QOS was a critical failure they immediately tossed the whole idea overboard and went back to square one with SF which was just a solid standalone entry. Their total abandonment of the Quantum organisation in SF suggests that they felt it was going nowhere box office wise and the continuity wasn't an important thing to pursue.
Then came the success of SF which I think they erroneously considered was entirely down to Mendes whereas it was more of a perfect storm of the Olympics, Adele, the 50th and a pretty solid entry of a film. The problem was Mendes said he was done so how to tempt him back? Well by a stroke of luck the SPECTRE rights issue was suddenly solved and they could offer Mendes rebooting Blofeld and, as Sam is all about character arcs, the rest is history.
But now, if Waltz is to be believed (and I stress 'if') after the shambles of SP they have flip flopped again and decided to forget Blofeld, SPECTRE and continuity.
So we have:
CR - Standalone
QOS - Connected
SF - No one remembers Quantum let's just go back to standalone.
SP - No actually hang on people are desperate to know who was behind Le Chiffre and Greene nearly 10 years ago so it really is all connected. Plus we've got a killer twist with Blofeld and Bond's past!
B25 - Well we really cocked that connected thing up so let's just pretend it never happened and go with a bog standard mission. Yeah Bond's alleged nemesis and is just going to rot in prison. Isn't that definitive enough closure for you?
They really haven't got a clue what they are doing on a scale only witnessed previously in the Liverpool back line defending a corner.
If you look at Marvel (I'm only using them as an example of planning and organisation - I certainly don't want us to end up with a sausage factory churning out uninspiring and increasingly repetitive sequels) they wrote down a strategy for the continuity and how it would all connect up and then they executed it.
Can't say I'm really that bothered either way about the continuity thing, Fleming and Cubby never particularly made any effort to do it, but if you are going to start it at least a) plan it carefully and b) don't suddenly abandon it halfway through.
Can't help thinking they badgered Craig into signing on again just so they had a better bargaining position in the distribution negotiations without any real plan of where to go next. If you're not going to continue the Craig continuity you've foisted on everyone then why not recast and start again?
To pull a thing like this off they needed serious leadership and direction rather than handing over so much control to Craig and Mendes to decide according to their whims.
Marvel have top talent like RDJ, Chris Evans, Scarlett Johannessen locked down on strict schedules for years in advance but Craig seems to think he can say he's a bit tired or needs a break and come back when he feels like it. Next guy they need to have a watertight contract: Initial 3 picture deal for B26 in 2022, B27 in 2025, B28 in 2028 with an option on B29 and B30 with pay rise if things are going well (but with release dates of 2032 and.2035 which are non negotiable).
As Craig himself says in Layer Cake 'Have a plan and stick to it.'
It's good advice because at the moment EON seem to getting corporate strategy advice from Farmyard Chicken (sans head) Associates.
The notion of any other company that took in $2 billion over the last 5 years being run on the hoof from year to year like this is inconceivable.
I would love to see a number of great Bond films with Spectre and Blofeld, but that would mean as big a departure as total abondon.
Exactly
Sadly with only a prospective one picture deal in the works, I can only assume we will have to wait for MGM to get its house in order post-B25 before the next distributor insists on a longer term plan and vision. One which hopefully results in more regular product releases, narrative consistency, and a more eager lead.
The other possibility of course is that all is not as it seems and there is misdirection afoot. Time will tell as this drama unspools over the upcoming year.
They could do that but they'd have to get to Blofeld eventually and because the Craig era has actually had an emphasis on continuity I think it'd be weird for another actor to just pick up where he left off. Plus I don't see the point in revealing Blofeld only to go the FRWL/TB route. It worked there because we hadn't seen Blofeld. There's no mystery now we know it's Franz Obenhauser, Bond's long lost brotherIknownotreallybuthebasicallywas.
I think if they're going to carry on the Craig era they need to finish that story somehow. Sadly it's looking like that somehow will be "pretend SP never happened, quietly sweep it under the rug and go for a stand alone movie right after we tried to make out that all the DC movies were one epic saga".
@TheWizardOfIce I was fine with SP (aside from the Silva retcon) even though it was obvious they were making it up along because I thought it was a cool way to tie things back to the beginning, and Quantum were basically a poor mans Spectre anyway. But carrying on the Craig era and ditching what they started a second time? Think they might have lost me on that one.
Surely Bond would say "filled in", being British.
https://cbr.com/james-bond-brexit/
What could Bond become post Brexit ? Well, I, for one, don't think we'll see much of a change, if there's any change at all. After all, Bond has lived before the UK joined the UE, he'll simply do the same.
EON was like an intrepid archaeologist, knowing about the golden chalice of Blofeld for decades but unable to access it. Then, after years and years of preparation, they enter the sacred temple, avoid all manner of poisonous traps, lift the chalice from the pedestal and... fumble it down the stairs. It rolls into the abyss of mediocrity and has been unsighted since.
Bond 25 should have been called 'Spectre' and revealing Blofeld. Whereas Bond 24 should have been the build up to it. Showing Blofeld in the shadows in the Spectre meeting should have been the only presence of Blofeld without showing his face. They could have had a No.2 as the central villain, Hinx as the henchman and White as the link man again between Quantum and Spectre. Don't announce the casting of Waltz (if it gets out, it gets out - but also if you don't call your first film starring Blofeld 'Spectre' than people will be looking for the identity less.)
The villainous plot in Bond 24 could have been resolved - but really it was just a part of an overall villainous scheme that could have arced across two films and been revealed completely in Bond 25. As someone said earlier - killing the 'back-to-back' films that were proposed for 24 and 25 may really have hurt the storytelling.
Perhaps they were worried that Craig wouldn't do another film and wanted to rush things. A little teasing would have worked well, and there would never have been any reason to tie Silva of all people in with SPECTRE. Quantum, yes. Silva, no.
What I want now is a clean swan song for Craig. It can be done. Blofeld is locked away, SPECTRE was permenantly damaged and C's plan was flushed down the toilet. Why don't we allow Craig a modern GF or TB or even TSWLM?
Agree with everything, but especially this. If Connery or Moore had wanted to wait two years before deciding to return I figure the producers would've laughed in their faces.