SPECTRE: So who's going to play Ernst?

Murdock

bondsum wrote:

Murdock wrote:

MGW said in an interview that they most likely wouldn't use Blofeld again. Good. Bond has only been rebooted. Not all 20 movies that came before.

Can you provide a link for this, @Murdock?

I'll have to do some digging as I saw said interview years ago.
EDIT: Blofeld wasn't mentioned in the interview so nevermind about him, he did however say that SPECTRE was in it's own time and done.

http://www.ign.com/videos/2008/11/11/quantum-of-solace-movie-interview-michael-g-wilson

Though my thought still stands. Blofeld and SPECTRE are finished. Let White and Quantum shine for a change instead of trying to look through some nostalgia goggles.

bondsum

Yes, I believe I read the same one, @Murdoch. It was an interview just before QoS came out so I can understand MGW's reluctance at the mention of reviving SPECTRE especially when they had just created the less successful Quantum organization. What MGW didn't know at that time was how the public would react to the movie and how it would be seen as one of the worst, if not the worst, out of the entire Bond canon. I quite liked it myself but I really don't think Quantum will be revived again and believe it will be put to one side in favour of other criminal activities.

Murdock

@bondsum I've never seen QoS seen as the Worst Bond movie in the eyes of the public. It was a disappointing followup to Casino Royale yes but nobody in my area ever said it's the worst. But don't assume EON's next move because you'll only be disappointed. John Logan might say "Bond is always meant to fight Blofeld" but Babs and MGW know when to come in and keep things in line now.

Dragonpol

Murdock wrote:

@bondsum I've never seen QoS seen as the Worst Bond movie in the eyes of the public. It was a disappointing followup to Casino Royale yes but nobody in my area ever said it's the worst. But don't assume EON's next move because you'll only be disappointed. John Logan might say "Bond is always meant to fight Blofeld" but Babs and MGW know when to come in and keep things in line now.

Yes, and thank goodness for it!

Ludovico

Dragonpol wrote:

Ludovico wrote:

Dragonpol wrote:

Ludovico wrote:

Dragonpol wrote:

Blofeld should not return in my view. The character wasn't transferred top the screen from the source very accurately (apart from OHMSS) so I wouldn't hold out for better this time around. It's in the past, just like the character of, say, Dr Julius No. It's best to let it stay there.

If Blofeld had been done completely and perfectly in the previous movies, like Dr. No, I would say yes, let leave him the past. But let's face it, they were so inconsistent with him and the character has been so massacred that he needs a proper revamp.

I still think Blofeld should remain a part of the past. When they ditched Blofeld after DAF they had some of the best villains of the series, freed from the SPECTRE chains. SPECTRE and Blofeld on film were boring and dull - like Kingsley Amis said just run up on the spot for Bond to have target practice on. None of Blofeld's actual background or character really made it onto the screen (apart from OHMSS, of course). There are plenty of original Fleming villains (Le Chiffre, 2006 for example) that never made it to the screen first time around - they should have a look at doing them or doing something similar instead.

SPECTRE on film was used for DN, FRWL, TB, OHMSS, hardly boring and dull films. Blofeld was overused after OHMSS and was rather weak in YOLT, but what created the issue was not so much the use of a nemesis for Bond, but the overuse of him, and a very poor follow up after OHMSS. I am all in favor of not overusing a recurring adversary, but Bond, like many heroes, has a nemesis in Blofeld and this can leads to great stories and great characterization. If not Blofeld, then a Blofeld-like character, a recurring adversary. That does not prevent the franchise to introduce unused Fleming characters: the Spangs, Hammerstein, Grubozaboischikov, etc.

Just for the sake of clarity I meant the Blofeld of YOLT and DAF more than his other film appearances. These Blofelds bore little to no resemblance to the complex character created by Ian Fleming. This is why I think Blofeld is rather stale news and should not be reused in any of the Bond films. They had their chance to create Blofeld in YOLT and DAF and they pretty much blew it. Blofeld became a cartoon villain and very little else. Blofeld should remain in the past. Dead and buried. The Austin Powers series of spoof films also did irreparable harm to the Bond films' depiction of Blofeld and the figure is more than a bit of a joke nowadays, and probably rightly so.

Yes, they blew it... About 40 years ago. Just like Batman was blown a couple of times, in various mediums. And Blofeld was spoofed. But what was spoofed was the already ridiculous image the movies had made with the character, not the character himself, so to speak. You could name anyone Blofeld and the average moviegoeer would not make the connection. When I say bring back Blofeld, I never ever mean bring back the bald guy stroking a cat. I mean bring back a Blofeld akin to the one of Fleming. Not too often, but sometimes as his nemesis. It's not like the source material was bad to begin with.

Dragonpol

Ludovico wrote:

Dragonpol wrote:

Ludovico wrote:

Dragonpol wrote:

Ludovico wrote:

Dragonpol wrote:

Blofeld should not return in my view. The character wasn't transferred top the screen from the source very accurately (apart from OHMSS) so I wouldn't hold out for better this time around. It's in the past, just like the character of, say, Dr Julius No. It's best to let it stay there.

If Blofeld had been done completely and perfectly in the previous movies, like Dr. No, I would say yes, let leave him the past. But let's face it, they were so inconsistent with him and the character has been so massacred that he needs a proper revamp.

I still think Blofeld should remain a part of the past. When they ditched Blofeld after DAF they had some of the best villains of the series, freed from the SPECTRE chains. SPECTRE and Blofeld on film were boring and dull - like Kingsley Amis said just run up on the spot for Bond to have target practice on. None of Blofeld's actual background or character really made it onto the screen (apart from OHMSS, of course). There are plenty of original Fleming villains (Le Chiffre, 2006 for example) that never made it to the screen first time around - they should have a look at doing them or doing something similar instead.

SPECTRE on film was used for DN, FRWL, TB, OHMSS, hardly boring and dull films. Blofeld was overused after OHMSS and was rather weak in YOLT, but what created the issue was not so much the use of a nemesis for Bond, but the overuse of him, and a very poor follow up after OHMSS. I am all in favor of not overusing a recurring adversary, but Bond, like many heroes, has a nemesis in Blofeld and this can leads to great stories and great characterization. If not Blofeld, then a Blofeld-like character, a recurring adversary. That does not prevent the franchise to introduce unused Fleming characters: the Spangs, Hammerstein, Grubozaboischikov, etc.

Just for the sake of clarity I meant the Blofeld of YOLT and DAF more than his other film appearances. These Blofelds bore little to no resemblance to the complex character created by Ian Fleming. This is why I think Blofeld is rather stale news and should not be reused in any of the Bond films. They had their chance to create Blofeld in YOLT and DAF and they pretty much blew it. Blofeld became a cartoon villain and very little else. Blofeld should remain in the past. Dead and buried. The Austin Powers series of spoof films also did irreparable harm to the Bond films' depiction of Blofeld and the figure is more than a bit of a joke nowadays, and probably rightly so.

Yes, they blew it... About 40 years ago. Just like Batman was blown a couple of times, in various mediums. And Blofeld was spoofed. But what was spoofed was the already ridiculous image the movies had made with the character, not the character himself, so to speak. You could name anyone Blofeld and the average moviegoeer would not make the connection. When I say bring back Blofeld, I never ever mean bring back the bald guy stroking a cat. I mean bring back a Blofeld akin to the one of Fleming. Not too often, but sometimes as his nemesis. It's not like the source material was bad to begin with.

The source material was not the problem. It was more the film-makers throwing the book away on YOLT and handing control over to new non-Bond scriptwriters like Roald Dahl and Jack Bloom. I'd love to have seen what Richard Maibaum would have come up with for YOLT - would we have seen the 'Garden of Death' and its attendant 'Castle of Death' I wonder? I doubt it, but one can but dream.

Gustav_Graves

Dragonpol wrote:

Ludovico wrote:

Dragonpol wrote:

Ludovico wrote:

Dragonpol wrote:

Ludovico wrote:

Dragonpol wrote:

Blofeld should not return in my view. The character wasn't transferred top the screen from the source very accurately (apart from OHMSS) so I wouldn't hold out for better this time around. It's in the past, just like the character of, say, Dr Julius No. It's best to let it stay there.

If Blofeld had been done completely and perfectly in the previous movies, like Dr. No, I would say yes, let leave him the past. But let's face it, they were so inconsistent with him and the character has been so massacred that he needs a proper revamp.

I still think Blofeld should remain a part of the past. When they ditched Blofeld after DAF they had some of the best villains of the series, freed from the SPECTRE chains. SPECTRE and Blofeld on film were boring and dull - like Kingsley Amis said just run up on the spot for Bond to have target practice on. None of Blofeld's actual background or character really made it onto the screen (apart from OHMSS, of course). There are plenty of original Fleming villains (Le Chiffre, 2006 for example) that never made it to the screen first time around - they should have a look at doing them or doing something similar instead.

SPECTRE on film was used for DN, FRWL, TB, OHMSS, hardly boring and dull films. Blofeld was overused after OHMSS and was rather weak in YOLT, but what created the issue was not so much the use of a nemesis for Bond, but the overuse of him, and a very poor follow up after OHMSS. I am all in favor of not overusing a recurring adversary, but Bond, like many heroes, has a nemesis in Blofeld and this can leads to great stories and great characterization. If not Blofeld, then a Blofeld-like character, a recurring adversary. That does not prevent the franchise to introduce unused Fleming characters: the Spangs, Hammerstein, Grubozaboischikov, etc.

Just for the sake of clarity I meant the Blofeld of YOLT and DAF more than his other film appearances. These Blofelds bore little to no resemblance to the complex character created by Ian Fleming. This is why I think Blofeld is rather stale news and should not be reused in any of the Bond films. They had their chance to create Blofeld in YOLT and DAF and they pretty much blew it. Blofeld became a cartoon villain and very little else. Blofeld should remain in the past. Dead and buried. The Austin Powers series of spoof films also did irreparable harm to the Bond films' depiction of Blofeld and the figure is more than a bit of a joke nowadays, and probably rightly so.

Yes, they blew it... About 40 years ago. Just like Batman was blown a couple of times, in various mediums. And Blofeld was spoofed. But what was spoofed was the already ridiculous image the movies had made with the character, not the character himself, so to speak. You could name anyone Blofeld and the average moviegoeer would not make the connection. When I say bring back Blofeld, I never ever mean bring back the bald guy stroking a cat. I mean bring back a Blofeld akin to the one of Fleming. Not too often, but sometimes as his nemesis. It's not like the source material was bad to begin with.

The source material was not the problem. It was more the film-makers throwing the book away on YOLT and handing control over to new non-Bond scriptwriters like Roald Dahl and Jack Bloom. I'd love to have seen what Richard Maibaum would have come up with for YOLT - would we have seen the 'Garden of Death' and its attendant 'Castle of Death' I wonder? I doubt it, but one can but dream.

Agreed here. The screenplay writers need to stay loyal to Fleming's original material....and not come up with some kind of cheesy interpretation of Blofeld. But hey, don't we agree here that John Logan already did it miles better here than Roald Dahl -a writer of books for children anyway- and Jack Bloom???

To be very serious, I think both Sam Mendes and John Logan studied the original Fleming material in such detail, that as a result we could witness this almost Doctor No-esque introduction of Silva with even some Rosa Klebb-esque erotic habits. Something I haven't seen since the Bond films from the 1960's! Man, Ian Fleming himself would have been in love with that introduction!

So.....I truly believe this can be done with Blofeld as well. As long as John Logan stays loyal to Fleming's work ánd the actual chronologicality and continuity of the events happened in the past three Craig films. A luxury the late Cubby and Harry didn't have, because they were limited to the practicability of events Ian Fleming himself created in his novels.

An example: OHMSS was only filmed when EON finallyyyy found a building that resembled Piz Gloria. Not to mention the fact that a realistically executed ski chase would be near impossible if it has been filmed in 1962 as the first Bond film. Hence certain continuity problems you get with characters like Blofeld. With the reboot of the franchise in 2006.....these problems are all gone!

And I think Blofeld should not be the victim of all this...no? I also think that Barbara and Michael now truly appreciate the fact that 're-inventing the wheel with Fleming's characters' is actually something that made CR and SF such enormous financial ánddd critical successes! So I wanna bet Barbara and Michael now think differently of Blofeld than during pre-production of QOS.

Ludovico

Gustav_Graves wrote:

Dragonpol wrote:

Ludovico wrote:

Dragonpol wrote:

Ludovico wrote:

Dragonpol wrote:

Ludovico wrote:

Dragonpol wrote:

Blofeld should not return in my view. The character wasn't transferred top the screen from the source very accurately (apart from OHMSS) so I wouldn't hold out for better this time around. It's in the past, just like the character of, say, Dr Julius No. It's best to let it stay there.

If Blofeld had been done completely and perfectly in the previous movies, like Dr. No, I would say yes, let leave him the past. But let's face it, they were so inconsistent with him and the character has been so massacred that he needs a proper revamp.

I still think Blofeld should remain a part of the past. When they ditched Blofeld after DAF they had some of the best villains of the series, freed from the SPECTRE chains. SPECTRE and Blofeld on film were boring and dull - like Kingsley Amis said just run up on the spot for Bond to have target practice on. None of Blofeld's actual background or character really made it onto the screen (apart from OHMSS, of course). There are plenty of original Fleming villains (Le Chiffre, 2006 for example) that never made it to the screen first time around - they should have a look at doing them or doing something similar instead.

SPECTRE on film was used for DN, FRWL, TB, OHMSS, hardly boring and dull films. Blofeld was overused after OHMSS and was rather weak in YOLT, but what created the issue was not so much the use of a nemesis for Bond, but the overuse of him, and a very poor follow up after OHMSS. I am all in favor of not overusing a recurring adversary, but Bond, like many heroes, has a nemesis in Blofeld and this can leads to great stories and great characterization. If not Blofeld, then a Blofeld-like character, a recurring adversary. That does not prevent the franchise to introduce unused Fleming characters: the Spangs, Hammerstein, Grubozaboischikov, etc.

Just for the sake of clarity I meant the Blofeld of YOLT and DAF more than his other film appearances. These Blofelds bore little to no resemblance to the complex character created by Ian Fleming. This is why I think Blofeld is rather stale news and should not be reused in any of the Bond films. They had their chance to create Blofeld in YOLT and DAF and they pretty much blew it. Blofeld became a cartoon villain and very little else. Blofeld should remain in the past. Dead and buried. The Austin Powers series of spoof films also did irreparable harm to the Bond films' depiction of Blofeld and the figure is more than a bit of a joke nowadays, and probably rightly so.

Yes, they blew it... About 40 years ago. Just like Batman was blown a couple of times, in various mediums. And Blofeld was spoofed. But what was spoofed was the already ridiculous image the movies had made with the character, not the character himself, so to speak. You could name anyone Blofeld and the average moviegoeer would not make the connection. When I say bring back Blofeld, I never ever mean bring back the bald guy stroking a cat. I mean bring back a Blofeld akin to the one of Fleming. Not too often, but sometimes as his nemesis. It's not like the source material was bad to begin with.

The source material was not the problem. It was more the film-makers throwing the book away on YOLT and handing control over to new non-Bond scriptwriters like Roald Dahl and Jack Bloom. I'd love to have seen what Richard Maibaum would have come up with for YOLT - would we have seen the 'Garden of Death' and its attendant 'Castle of Death' I wonder? I doubt it, but one can but dream.

Agreed here. The screenplay writers need to stay loyal to Fleming's original material....and not come up with some kind of cheesy interpretation of Blofeld. But hey, don't we agree here that John Logan already did it miles better here than Roald Dahl -a writer of books for children anyway- and Jack Bloom???

To be very serious, I think both Sam Mendes and John Logan studied the original Fleming material in such detail, that as a result we could witness this almost Doctor No-esque introduction of Silva with even some Rosa Klebb-esque erotic habits. Something I haven't seen since the Bond films from the 1960's! Man, Ian Fleming himself would have been in love with that introduction!

So.....I truly believe this can be done with Blofeld as well. As long as John Logan stays loyal to Fleming's work ánd the actual chronologicality and continuity of the events happened in the past three Craig films. A luxury the late Cubby and Harry didn't have, because they were limited to the practicability of events Ian Fleming himself created in his novels.

An example: OHMSS was only filmed when EON finallyyyy found a building that resembled Piz Gloria. Not to mention the fact that a realistically executed ski chase would be near impossible if it has been filmed in 1962 as the first Bond film. Hence certain continuity problems you get with characters like Blofeld. With the reboot of the franchise in 2006.....these problems are all gone!

And I think Blofeld should not be the victim of all this...no? I also think that Barbara and Michael now truly appreciate the fact that 're-inventing the wheel with Fleming's characters' is actually something that made CR and SF such enormous financial ánddd critical successes! So I wanna bet Barbara and Michael now think differently of Blofeld than during pre-production of QOS.

I can't add anything to this. And @Dragonpol, if the source material is not at fault, I don't see what's wrong using it.

That said, maybe it is too early to reintroduce Blofeld and the character might be better suited to bring something to the successor of Craig, whoever he is.

Dragonpol

Ludovico wrote:

Gustav_Graves wrote:

Dragonpol wrote:

Ludovico wrote:

Dragonpol wrote:

Ludovico wrote:

Dragonpol wrote:

Ludovico wrote:

Dragonpol wrote:

Blofeld should not return in my view. The character wasn't transferred top the screen from the source very accurately (apart from OHMSS) so I wouldn't hold out for better this time around. It's in the past, just like the character of, say, Dr Julius No. It's best to let it stay there.

If Blofeld had been done completely and perfectly in the previous movies, like Dr. No, I would say yes, let leave him the past. But let's face it, they were so inconsistent with him and the character has been so massacred that he needs a proper revamp.

I still think Blofeld should remain a part of the past. When they ditched Blofeld after DAF they had some of the best villains of the series, freed from the SPECTRE chains. SPECTRE and Blofeld on film were boring and dull - like Kingsley Amis said just run up on the spot for Bond to have target practice on. None of Blofeld's actual background or character really made it onto the screen (apart from OHMSS, of course). There are plenty of original Fleming villains (Le Chiffre, 2006 for example) that never made it to the screen first time around - they should have a look at doing them or doing something similar instead.

SPECTRE on film was used for DN, FRWL, TB, OHMSS, hardly boring and dull films. Blofeld was overused after OHMSS and was rather weak in YOLT, but what created the issue was not so much the use of a nemesis for Bond, but the overuse of him, and a very poor follow up after OHMSS. I am all in favor of not overusing a recurring adversary, but Bond, like many heroes, has a nemesis in Blofeld and this can leads to great stories and great characterization. If not Blofeld, then a Blofeld-like character, a recurring adversary. That does not prevent the franchise to introduce unused Fleming characters: the Spangs, Hammerstein, Grubozaboischikov, etc.

Just for the sake of clarity I meant the Blofeld of YOLT and DAF more than his other film appearances. These Blofelds bore little to no resemblance to the complex character created by Ian Fleming. This is why I think Blofeld is rather stale news and should not be reused in any of the Bond films. They had their chance to create Blofeld in YOLT and DAF and they pretty much blew it. Blofeld became a cartoon villain and very little else. Blofeld should remain in the past. Dead and buried. The Austin Powers series of spoof films also did irreparable harm to the Bond films' depiction of Blofeld and the figure is more than a bit of a joke nowadays, and probably rightly so.

Yes, they blew it... About 40 years ago. Just like Batman was blown a couple of times, in various mediums. And Blofeld was spoofed. But what was spoofed was the already ridiculous image the movies had made with the character, not the character himself, so to speak. You could name anyone Blofeld and the average moviegoeer would not make the connection. When I say bring back Blofeld, I never ever mean bring back the bald guy stroking a cat. I mean bring back a Blofeld akin to the one of Fleming. Not too often, but sometimes as his nemesis. It's not like the source material was bad to begin with.

The source material was not the problem. It was more the film-makers throwing the book away on YOLT and handing control over to new non-Bond scriptwriters like Roald Dahl and Jack Bloom. I'd love to have seen what Richard Maibaum would have come up with for YOLT - would we have seen the 'Garden of Death' and its attendant 'Castle of Death' I wonder? I doubt it, but one can but dream.

Agreed here. The screenplay writers need to stay loyal to Fleming's original material....and not come up with some kind of cheesy interpretation of Blofeld. But hey, don't we agree here that John Logan already did it miles better here than Roald Dahl -a writer of books for children anyway- and Jack Bloom???

To be very serious, I think both Sam Mendes and John Logan studied the original Fleming material in such detail, that as a result we could witness this almost Doctor No-esque introduction of Silva with even some Rosa Klebb-esque erotic habits. Something I haven't seen since the Bond films from the 1960's! Man, Ian Fleming himself would have been in love with that introduction!

So.....I truly believe this can be done with Blofeld as well. As long as John Logan stays loyal to Fleming's work ánd the actual chronologicality and continuity of the events happened in the past three Craig films. A luxury the late Cubby and Harry didn't have, because they were limited to the practicability of events Ian Fleming himself created in his novels.

An example: OHMSS was only filmed when EON finallyyyy found a building that resembled Piz Gloria. Not to mention the fact that a realistically executed ski chase would be near impossible if it has been filmed in 1962 as the first Bond film. Hence certain continuity problems you get with characters like Blofeld. With the reboot of the franchise in 2006.....these problems are all gone!

And I think Blofeld should not be the victim of all this...no? I also think that Barbara and Michael now truly appreciate the fact that 're-inventing the wheel with Fleming's characters' is actually something that made CR and SF such enormous financial ánddd critical successes! So I wanna bet Barbara and Michael now think differently of Blofeld than during pre-production of QOS.

I can't add anything to this. And @Dragonpol, if the source material is not at fault, I don't see what's wrong using it.

That said, maybe it is too early to reintroduce Blofeld and the character might be better suited to bring something to the successor of Craig, whoever he is.

Yes, I see your point but I guess I don't like the idea of "doubling-up", that's all. The Blofeld figure has already long ago entered the popular consciousness as a bald man who strokes a cat and does little else, and it would take a lot of work to undo the image. Perhaps calling Blofeld Dr Guntram Shatterhand is the answer, providing him with the sort of background that Fleming gave him - a master of disguise and a master plotter who could head Quantum or some other criminal fraternity in a given future Bond film, perhaps even post-Craig.

Ludovico

The Blofeld image is what is in the popular culture. The name nobody remembers it but Bond fans. I am not sure that many moviegoers know the name of M's secretary or know that Bond's superior is called M. Blofeld as a name could be given to anyone and they'll be none the wiser. There is a risk to it: that they just create a supervillain out of scratch and give him the name Blofeld. But if done well, if they stick close to Fleming, I think it can work.

Gustav_Graves

I slightly disagree with @Dragonpol here. Just slightly ;-). Look how Jack Nicholson played The Joker in the 1989 film 'Batman' (By the way, financially way more succesful than the 1989 James Bond film 'Licence To Kill'). And then look how it was brought on the screen almost twenty years later in Christopher Nolan's 'The Dark Knight'.

Having said that....I think it's the time that has passed since Blofeld's last appearance and the image Blofeld has among Bond fans are the real problems. The creativity and writing skills of the screenplaywriter are way more vital here. They decide the outcome a character that has to be re-invented. David Goyer and Chris Nolan knew how to do that. John Logan knows how to do that with Bond, with Q, M and Moneypenny.

And despite the fact that many cinema-go-ers don't know a thing about Blofeld, a re-invented one could have that 'wow-effect' on those same kind of cinema-visitors.

Dragonpol

Gustav_Graves wrote:

I slightly disagree with @Dragonpol here. Just slightly ;-). Look how Jack Nicholson played The Joker in the 1989 film 'Batman' (By the way, financially way more succesful than the 1989 James Bond film 'Licence To Kill'). And then look how it was brought on the screen almost twenty years later in Christopher Nolan's 'The Dark Knight'.

Having said that....I think it's the time that has passed since Blofeld's last appearance and the image Blofeld has among Bond fans are the real problems. The creativity and writing skills of the screenplaywriter are way more vital here. They decide the outcome a character that has to be re-invented. David Goyer and Chris Nolan knew how to do that. John Logan knows how to do that with Bond, with Q, M and Moneypenny.

And despite the fact that many cinema-go-ers don't know a thing about Blofeld, a re-invented one could have that 'wow-effect' on those same kind of cinema-visitors.

Well, fair enough.

Ludovico

Gustav_Graves wrote:

I slightly disagree with @Dragonpol here. Just slightly ;-). Look how Jack Nicholson played The Joker in the 1989 film 'Batman' (By the way, financially way more succesful than the 1989 James Bond film 'Licence To Kill'). And then look how it was brought on the screen almost twenty years later in Christopher Nolan's 'The Dark Knight'.

Having said that....I think it's the time that has passed since Blofeld's last appearance and the image Blofeld has among Bond fans are the real problems. The creativity and writing skills of the screenplaywriter are way more vital here. They decide the outcome a character that has to be re-invented. David Goyer and Chris Nolan knew how to do that. John Logan knows how to do that with Bond, with Q, M and Moneypenny.

And despite the fact that many cinema-go-ers don't know a thing about Blofeld, a re-invented one could have that 'wow-effect' on those same kind of cinema-visitors.

Funny, I often think about the Joker when we debate about Blofeld here. It is an iconic Batman character, way more famous than Blofeld ever was in the Bond franchise, and he was brought back in the Batman movies inventively, incidentally in a reboot. I have not seen the second "new" Star Trek movie, so I can't speak about Khan, but revisiting old characters seem to be quite popular these days. Not an argument for the return of Blofeld (argument at popularity are pointless intrinsically), but an argument showing why they might be tempted to reintroduce the character.

Oh, and I will qualify what I said here and in other threads: I am for the return of Blofeld, providing it is done right. The idea that he may return is one that makes me enthusiastic, but also worried. Because they can get it wrong. They have in the past.

Dragonpol

Ludovico wrote:

Gustav_Graves wrote:

I slightly disagree with @Dragonpol here. Just slightly ;-). Look how Jack Nicholson played The Joker in the 1989 film 'Batman' (By the way, financially way more succesful than the 1989 James Bond film 'Licence To Kill'). And then look how it was brought on the screen almost twenty years later in Christopher Nolan's 'The Dark Knight'.

Having said that....I think it's the time that has passed since Blofeld's last appearance and the image Blofeld has among Bond fans are the real problems. The creativity and writing skills of the screenplaywriter are way more vital here. They decide the outcome a character that has to be re-invented. David Goyer and Chris Nolan knew how to do that. John Logan knows how to do that with Bond, with Q, M and Moneypenny.

And despite the fact that many cinema-go-ers don't know a thing about Blofeld, a re-invented one could have that 'wow-effect' on those same kind of cinema-visitors.

Funny, I often think about the Joker when we debate about Blofeld here. It is an iconic Batman character, way more famous than Blofeld ever was in the Bond franchise, and he was brought back in the Batman movies inventively, incidentally in a reboot. I have not seen the second "new" Star Trek movie, so I can't speak about Khan, but revisiting old characters seem to be quite popular these days. Not an argument for the return of Blofeld (argument at popularity are pointless intrinsically), but an argument showing why they might be tempted to reintroduce the character.

Indeed. I'm not a big Batman fan but I did buy the new trio of films and recently acquired the 1989 Batman in order to see what all the fuss was about. I know a little of Star Trek as my best friend is a fanatic. I've not seen any of the new reboot films, though. Reboots and reusing old characters from the past does currently seem to be in vogue in Hollywood currently and Bond has, and will doubtless continue to, follow suit.

Gustav_Graves

As @Ludovico says: "I am for the return of Blofeld, providing it is done right." I agree full 100% here.

Thing is....there is a chance that John Logan comes up with something completely different. But again, the return of Blofeld is no longer a stupid idea.....

Dragonpol

Gustav_Graves wrote:

As @Ludovico says: "I am for the return of Blofeld, providing it is done right." I agree full 100% here.

Thing is....there is a chance that John Logan comes up with something completely different. But again, the return of Blofeld is no longer a stupid idea.....

Logan may yet surprise us - I'm all for that, in fact!

LeChiffre

The return of Blofeld would definitely boost box office figures, possibly post Billion again. It would be as anticiapted as the return of the Joker in The Dark Knight. Such an iconic character. Benedict Cumberbatch or Michael Sheen (that old rumour again!)

LeChiffre

LeChiffre wrote:

The return of Blofeld would definitely boost box office figures, possibly post Billion again. It would be as anticiapted as the return of the Joker in The Dark Knight. Such an iconic character. Benedict Cumberbatch or Michael Sheen (that old rumour again!) would do me. Also as a huge 24 fan I'd love to see Kiefer Sutherland feature in a Bond film, maybe a slightly out of the box suggestion for Blofeld?

Ludovico

LeChiffre wrote:

LeChiffre wrote:

The return of Blofeld would definitely boost box office figures, possibly post Billion again. It would be as anticiapted as the return of the Joker in The Dark Knight. Such an iconic character. Benedict Cumberbatch or Michael Sheen (that old rumour again!) would do me. Also as a huge 24 fan I'd love to see Kiefer Sutherland feature in a Bond film, maybe a slightly out of the box suggestion for Blofeld?

Sutherland is too associated with 24, Cumberbatch is too young and too associated now with other iconic characters in iconic franchises. Blofeld himself is not that iconic, if one thinks about it, outside the Bond fan community, but he does have an appeal akin to Moriarty I think.

echo

I'm generally on the "no" side of bringing back Blofeld. I don't see the point of reintroducing iconic villains from the most successful and remembered Bond films--Dr. No, Red Grant, Goldfinger, Blofeld. IMHO, the Craig era has been most notable for its unearthing true Fleming gems like Vesper, Mathis, and Scaramanga (in the guise of Silva). God knows there are other characters like that, such as Brand and, perhaps, the Spangs.

boldfinger

I don´t understand. What would be wrong with leaving names that have been massively used in the past in the past, but use Fleming´s description of Blofeld, with another name?

bondsum

Murdock wrote:

@bondsum I've never seen QoS seen as the Worst Bond movie in the eyes of the public. It was a disappointing followup to Casino Royale yes but nobody in my area ever said it's the worst.

Plenty of people on MI6 threads have stated that QoS is very poor and bottom of their Bond list, @Murdock. You can also head over to IMBd and see plenty of other negative reviews that call it either "Utter garbage" or "One of the worst Bond movies ever." It doesn't mean I agree with them but the point I'm trying to make is that QoS wasn't well received by a large proportion of the paying public and I don't think the Quantum organization will be revisited again due to this. Basically I think Quantum is less likely to appear again than SPECTRE is.

Gustav_Graves

bondsum wrote:

Murdock wrote:

@bondsum I've never seen QoS seen as the Worst Bond movie in the eyes of the public. It was a disappointing followup to Casino Royale yes but nobody in my area ever said it's the worst.

Plenty of people on MI6 threads have stated that QoS is very poor and bottom of their Bond list, @Murdock. You can also head over to IMBd and see plenty of other negative reviews that call it either "Utter garbage" or "One of the worst Bond movies ever." It doesn't mean I agree with them but the point I'm trying to make is that QoS wasn't well received by a large proportion of the paying public and I don't think the Quantum organization will be revisited again due to this. Basically I think Quantum is less likely to appear again than SPECTRE is.

SPECTRE has always been some kind of crime equivalent of the British Secret Service MI6: SPECTRE was, like MI6 a secret organization too. They were hiding in most peculiar ways....an old abandoned bauxite mine ('Doctor No'), a yaught in a place we still don't know where it was located ('From Russia With Love'), the International Brotherhood for the Assistance of Stateless Persons (The SPECTRE cover equivalent of Universal Exports in 'Thunderball'. Marvellous cover ;-))and an expensive research institute on Piz Gloria ('On Her Majesty's Secret Service').

But QUANTUM? Oowh no, they don't believe in secrecy. They prefer an open air board meeting at a Tosca opera performance in Bregenz, Austria. I found that quite......weird and unrealistic for a crime syndicate. It's time that a crime syndicate operates in full secrecy again. At least for the two upcoming Bond films.

I do think however that, if SPECTRE will be used in the near future, it should be linked to QUANTUM. Just in the first part of the film where ex-QUANTUM members join SPECTRE and agree that complete secrecy and loyalty to its organization is of uttermost importance. So QUANTUM as mean syndicate? No. But mentioning QUANTUM a few times for continuity purposes? Yes.

Dragonpol

boldfinger wrote:

I don´t understand. What would be wrong with leaving names that have been massively used in the past in the past, but use Fleming´s description of Blofeld, with another name?

Indeed. That was my suggestion above and this would be a safe bet on what would probably happen in reality.

Murdock

boldfinger wrote:

I don´t understand. What would be wrong with leaving names that have been massively used in the past in the past, but use Fleming´s description of Blofeld, with another name?

That would be the best choice.

And Quantum being out in public during there meeting is the perfect sign of secrecy. It's like real life spies blending into crowds. Who's going to think of looking for a secret meeting at an opera? SPECTRE has seen it's day. Quantum is the new SPECTRE. I've said it over and over again.

Just because Bond has been rebooted doesn't mean all 20 movies have. While were at it, let's ask Who's going to play Tracy in B24-25? Hmm? who's going to play Jaws? Kerim Bay? Quarrel? Luigi? Scaramanga?

Dragonpol

Murdock wrote:

boldfinger wrote:

I don´t understand. What would be wrong with leaving names that have been massively used in the past in the past, but use Fleming´s description of Blofeld, with another name?

That would be the best choice.

And Quantum being out in public during there meeting is the perfect sign of secrecy. It's like real life spies blending into crowds. Who's going to think of looking for a secret meeting at an opera? SPECTRE has seen it's day. Quantum is the new SPECTRE. I've said it over and over again.

Just because Bond has been rebooted doesn't mean all 20 movies have. While were at it, let's ask Who's going to play Tracy in B24-25? Hmm? who's going to play Jaws? Kerim Bay? Quarrel? Luigi? Scaramanga?

Agreed. this is the best approach for the next few Bond films with Daniel Craig.

boldfinger

Dragonpol wrote:

Murdock wrote:

boldfinger wrote:

I don´t understand. What would be wrong with leaving names that have been massively used in the past in the past, but use Fleming´s description of Blofeld, with another name?

That would be the best choice.

And Quantum being out in public during there meeting is the perfect sign of secrecy. It's like real life spies blending into crowds. Who's going to think of looking for a secret meeting at an opera? SPECTRE has seen it's day. Quantum is the new SPECTRE. I've said it over and over again.

Just because Bond has been rebooted doesn't mean all 20 movies have. While were at it, let's ask Who's going to play Tracy in B24-25? Hmm? who's going to play Jaws? Kerim Bay? Quarrel? Luigi? Scaramanga?

Agreed. this is the best approach for the next few Bond films with Daniel Craig.

Right. That´s settled then. Let´s call Babs and Michael B-) .

Murdock wrote:

And Quantum being out in public during there meeting is the perfect sign of secrecy. It's like real life spies blending into crowds. Who's going to think of looking for a secret meeting at an opera? SPECTRE has seen it's day. Quantum is the new SPECTRE. I've said it over and over again.

And you were right over and over again @Murdock, but I´m afraid so is @bondsum:

bondsum wrote:

It doesn't mean I agree with them but the point I'm trying to make is that QoS wasn't well received by a large proportion of the paying public and I don't think the Quantum organization will be revisited again due to this. Basically I think Quantum is less likely to appear again than SPECTRE is.

LeChiffre

I dont think people should be so precious to say that Blofeld belongs in the past. It's been long enough now for a re-invention of the character ie Heath Ledger followed successfully in Jack Nicholson's footsteps as the Joker which alot of people questioned at the time. There are plenty of fine actors out there who could do the part justice. Just wish Sir Anthony Hopkins had accepted the role in the early 90's. Dalton may well have made the much missed 3rd film if he knew Sir Tony had been involved.

Murdock

The Difference between Blofeld and the Joker is that The Joker is a comic book character. Who had died and returned many different times. Blofeld appeared in 3 Bond novels. Blofeld never returned after You Only Live Twice. In the films Blofeld had changed from serious villain to campy oaf. Now Blofeld could be re-adapted in modern times with a new name. Maybe Ernest Shatterhand or something to that effect. I'm not against his story, I'm against the reuse of his name and the reuse of SPECTRE. SPECTRE has been rebooted as QUANTUM. Changing it to SPECTRE now would just be pandering to fans who want a nostalgia high.

Gustav_Graves

Murdock wrote:

The Difference between Blofeld and the Joker is that The Joker is a comic book character. Who had died and returned many different times. Blofeld appeared in 3 Bond novels. Blofeld never returned after You Only Live Twice. In the films Blofeld had changed from serious villain to campy oaf. Now Blofeld could be re-adapted in modern times with a new name. Maybe Ernest Shatterhand or something to that effect. I'm not against his story, I'm against the reuse of his name and the reuse of SPECTRE. SPECTRE has been rebooted as QUANTUM. Changing it to SPECTRE now would just be pandering to fans who want a nostalgia high.

Give me one good argument why you are against using the name 'Ernst Stavro Blofeld' and 'SPECTRE'. In my opinion Bond films aren't solely made for fans...but for audiences that are way way larger than just us fans.