SPECTRE: So who's going to play Ernst?

1171820222354

Comments

  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Ludovico wrote:
    And nobody complained when a similar plot was used in Chinatown and Once Upon a Time in the West.

    This is James Bond - that and the fact it's so woefully executed. The scheme was 'BORING' and the very fact it's plausible does not give it credence. Chinatown is a wonderful piece of cinema and the fact you're using it to justify the inadequacies of QoS is quite frankly disturbing.
  • pachazopachazo Make Your Choice
    Posts: 7,314
    What was the original intent of the writers regarding the leadership of QUANTUM? Did they even get that far or were they just making this up as they went along? I'd hate for Blofeld to suddenly be revealed as the head of QUANTUM just because they have the rights to do so now. Unless of course it was meant to be nothing more than a SPECTRE imitation in the first place.

    I'm sure that if the right actor was hired it would certainly go a long way in easing my mind about the situation but it's still somewhat disappointing. Oh QUANTUM, you had so much potential.
  • Posts: 15,106
    RC7 wrote:
    Ludovico wrote:
    And nobody complained when a similar plot was used in Chinatown and Once Upon a Time in the West.

    This is James Bond - that and the fact it's so woefully executed. The scheme was 'BORING' and the very fact it's plausible does not give it credence. Chinatown is a wonderful piece of cinema and the fact you're using it to justify the inadequacies of QoS is quite frankly disturbing.

    But its the same darn scheme! Sure QOS is no Chinatown but what's wrong, intrinsically, with the water supply scheme? Not the execution, the motive.
  • RC7RC7
    edited November 2013 Posts: 10,512
    Ludovico wrote:
    RC7 wrote:
    Ludovico wrote:
    And nobody complained when a similar plot was used in Chinatown and Once Upon a Time in the West.

    This is James Bond - that and the fact it's so woefully executed. The scheme was 'BORING' and the very fact it's plausible does not give it credence. Chinatown is a wonderful piece of cinema and the fact you're using it to justify the inadequacies of QoS is quite frankly disturbing.

    But its the same darn scheme! Sure QOS is no Chinatown but what's wrong, intrinsically, with the water supply scheme? Not the execution, the motive.

    I don't think it works contextually in a Bond movie. The 'idea' of the scheme is fine but the narrative of a Bond movie doesn't allow for it to take on any dramatic weight. Thus it just becomes a boring McGuffin. Nothing is at stake for anyone individually, just a faceless group of crooks screwing over several million people with whom we have no connection. In CR we see Le Chiffre gradually lose his grip as Bond's persistence really take its toll on him. Even the rip-roaring action scenes that make up the first half of the movie essentially feed into the Le Chiffre narrative.

    Whether or not the 'idea' of it is theoretically decent, what narrative purpose did the water plot serve? To highlight Quantum's ruthlessness? To try and cleverly mirror the corporations in real life? It just ends up half baked. This is why it's wrong. If I wrote a film based around the rise and fall of a gangster, does it make my film theoretically sound because Scarface was a good film?
  • Posts: 15,106
    It may have ended up half baked, but at the core what makes it unfit for Bond? Quantum couldn't have spent the movie hiding or running away, it needed some plan, or else the enemy would have spent the movie on the defensive. And taking over a large supply of water when the resource is scarce is as large scale a scheme as it can be. We can complain about the execution, but the basic scheme fits the Bond universe.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Ludovico wrote:
    It may have ended up half baked, but at the core what makes it unfit for Bond?

    Like I say, I just think it's too realistic. It's effectively what privatised utilities companies do. There's nothing to grasp on to, no jeopardy in the scheme because the people it affects are of no consequence in the movie.
  • edited November 2013 Posts: 1,970
    The only way I will be fine with Blofeld coming back is if they make a faithfull adaptation of the Novel You Only Live Twice. Obvs dont call it YOLT give it a different name but use the plot of the book for the movie with a few name changes to characters
  • edited November 2013 Posts: 11,119
    RC7 wrote:
    Ludovico wrote:
    It may have ended up half baked, but at the core what makes it unfit for Bond?

    Like I say, I just think it's too realistic. It's effectively what privatised utilities companies do. There's nothing to grasp on to, no jeopardy in the scheme because the people it affects are of no consequence in the movie.

    You COMPLETELY make my point clear in just a few sentences. I 100% agree with you. Thanks @RC7. What if this 'sinister' water scheme of QUANTUM wasn't discovered? Not much really. By the way, I was referring to one of my posts. Have a read if you like. Curious what you think:
    I think it's solely a matter of taste to be honest. Taking into account realism, I still think SPECTRE operated way more effectively than QUANTUM. I don't know what it was, but to see operatives of this QUANTUM-thingie having a meeting during an opera is IMO quite insane. Prone for security breaks. I think QUANTUM wouldn't be a worthy dossier in the WikiLeaks archive. Or what about those China produced earpieces, which the QUANTUM members used to communicate with, designed into the letter 'Q'? For me QUANTUM also lacked any kind of fear. It wasn't that sinister for me. Perhaps because it was easily unmasked by 007? Perhaps Dominic Green was a boring villain? If you are a filantropist, then go all the way please! I.....I can't exactly put my finger on it.

    I can live with the name QUANTUM, but QUANTUM itself needs to be changed. They need to go completely underground. Perhaps they tantalisingly need to let MI6 know that QUANTUM is finished, dead, period! Then they can re-organize themselves. Change the organisation into a more structured syndicate with clear hierarchy. Something SPECTRE always did quite well.

    Also, realism is important. But don't try to make everything forcefully 'realistic'. QUANTUM or SPECTRE: Both syndicates are quite ludicrous, even for Fleming's standards. I just think SPECTRE was worked out way better than QUANTUM. SPECTRE basically streamlined and canalized FOUR important elements of criminal activities:

    -> Counter-intelligence
    -> Terrorism
    -> Revenge
    -> Extortion

    If Michael G. Wilson says that these elements are slightly outdated, then I disagree. Silva's actions in 'Skyfall' were clearly an action of revenge (an element of SPECTRE). Terrorism, well, we saw that in both 'Casino Royale' and 'Skyfall'. The attack on the jumbojet in Miami was clearly a terrorist attack to get more financial stability for QUANTUM. The terrorist attack on MI6 in 'Skyfall' had its roots in revenge (Silva). And then Extortion, well clearly Dominic Greene did that with General Medrano.

    You see, the elements of SPECTRE are still alive and kicking. I just hope the future crime syndicate Bond will be dealing with, will be:

    A) more secretive (meeting during an opera? Really...)
    B) better organized (it helps clarity among cinema visitors)
    C) having a better hierarchy (paves the way for a Blofeld-like villain)
    D) more threathening and sinister (do like Silva. Kill off a Bond-girl one or two)

    If then the name will be either SPECTRE or QUANTUM, I don't care that much (I can remember in the German dubbed Bond films, SPECTRE was renamed FANTOM (=Phantom). Idea?). I still think 'SPECTRE' sounds a bit more sinister though :-).

    Concerning Ernst Stavro Blofeld. Well, besides being a Bond fan, I'm also a proud fan of Ian Fleming. When we talk about making a Bond film more 'Fleming-esque', it doesn't always mean that the Bond films should become realistic in an almost exaggerated way.

    I think, if I read carefully between the lines of what posters in here are saying, that Bond 24 could have the more light-hearted influence of Ian Fleming, then why ignoring well-crafted characters....like Blofeld?? That's like saying "Goodbye Ian. You are dead now. We do it our own way". Ignoring Blofeld IMO is ignoring an entire universe full of well-crafted recurring characters like Bond, Leiter, Moneypenny, Q, Tanner, M and indeed...Blofeld! And trust me, Michael and Barbara have shown us how to update old Fleming plots ('Casino Royale') into today's modern-day society. I wanna bet they are eager to do this with Blofeld too. Also, be a bit more proud of Fleming's legacy and that Polish/Greek psychtic he created :-).
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    edited November 2013 Posts: 9,117
    Ludovico wrote:
    It may have ended up half baked, but at the core what makes it unfit for Bond?

    Because despite General Medrano's assertion that his country is not some 'flyspeck in the ocean' who gives a toss if Quantum's plan was even to wipe Bolivia off the map? Not I.

    Bond should be defending Queen and country, or at least western civilisation, not flyspecks. What would actually happen if tomorrow Bolivia ceased to exist? The price of coffee and cocaine might go up a bit but apart from that....?
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,960
    Ludovico wrote:
    It may have ended up half baked, but at the core what makes it unfit for Bond?

    Because despite General Medrano's assertion that his country is not some 'flyspeck in the ocean' who gives a toss if Quantum's plan was even to wipe Bolivia off the map? Not I.

    Bond should be defending Queen and country, or at least western civilisation, not flyspecks. What would actually happen if tomorrow Bolivia ceased to exist? The price of coffee and cocaine might go up a bit but apart from that....?

    I take my coffee very seriously, Wiz...

    ...and my copious amounts of cocaine.

    ;-)
  • edited November 2013 Posts: 11,119
    Ludovico wrote:
    It may have ended up half baked, but at the core what makes it unfit for Bond?

    Because despite General Medrano's assertion that his country is not some 'flyspeck in the ocean' who gives a toss if Quantum's plan was even to wipe Bolivia off the map? Not I.

    Bond should be defending Queen and country, or at least western civilisation, not flyspecks. What would actually happen if tomorrow Bolivia ceased to exist? The price of coffee and cocaine might go up a bit but apart from that....?

    I agree here again @TheWizardOfIce. It's something I've been missing lately. A villain's scheme that could cause death and destruction to such an extend, that we actually would be delighted to see 'the savior of Queen, Countries and the entire Civilized World' win from it all. Because in the end Bond is not just a modern-day spy. He's a Shakespearian larger-than-life hero figure too, that later inspired even the guys from MARVEL and DC Comics :-).
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    Creasy47 wrote:
    Ludovico wrote:
    It may have ended up half baked, but at the core what makes it unfit for Bond?

    Because despite General Medrano's assertion that his country is not some 'flyspeck in the ocean' who gives a toss if Quantum's plan was even to wipe Bolivia off the map? Not I.

    Bond should be defending Queen and country, or at least western civilisation, not flyspecks. What would actually happen if tomorrow Bolivia ceased to exist? The price of coffee and cocaine might go up a bit but apart from that....?

    I take my coffee very seriously, Wiz...

    ...and my copious amounts of cocaine.

    ;-)

    Well then you would be entitled to be most disgruntled if Quantum planned to destory Bolivia. But they didnt - they just had the evil scheme to make a few villagers in funny hats thirsty.

    http://static.comicvine.com/uploads/original/0/77/1682942-dr.evil.jpg
  • Posts: 15,106
    Ludovico wrote:
    It may have ended up half baked, but at the core what makes it unfit for Bond?

    Because despite General Medrano's assertion that his country is not some 'flyspeck in the ocean' who gives a toss if Quantum's plan was even to wipe Bolivia off the map? Not I.

    Bond should be defending Queen and country, or at least western civilisation, not flyspecks. What would actually happen if tomorrow Bolivia ceased to exist? The price of coffee and cocaine might go up a bit but apart from that....?

    A whole country becomes a kleptocracy and Quantum gets huge, huge, huge amounts of money. Hence more power, more influence... I have friends in the military, the supply of water is now a matter of strategic, geopolitical and economic concerns for the Western world. Even if what happens in Bolivia does not directly involves the UK or the US, having the Bolivian government a puppet in the hands of Quantum (an organization responsible of at least one terrorist attack in the USA) can have terrible consequences.
  • I think that Anthony Hopkins would make a great Blofeld...
  • Posts: 15,106
    Murdock wrote:
    Yeah Recurring Bond villains worked so well. He kept being recast which ultimately ruined him.

    Also someone please tell me what Blofeld did to make him be so iconic to be compaired with James Moriarty and The Joker? I don't remember reading anything that special about Blofeld.
    Murdock wrote:
    Yeah Recurring Bond villains worked so well. He kept being recast which ultimately ruined him.

    Also someone please tell me what Blofeld did to make him be so iconic to be compaired with James Moriarty and The Joker? I don't remember reading anything that special about Blofeld.

    Have you actually read the.novels? Among the villains Blofeld is one of a kind. As for the influence of Moriarty, read The Final Problem.
  • Posts: 15,106
    I think that Anthony Hopkins would make a great Blofeld...

    Far too old now. Too predictable too. In the early 90s, he would have been a great choice.
  • Ludovico wrote:
    I think that Anthony Hopkins would make a great Blofeld...

    Far too old now. Too predictable too. In the early 90s, he would have been a great choice.

    I know he's a bit old, but why couldn't Blofeld also be? Besides, if you are a good actor I don't really think it would matter if it is "predictable"...
  • 007InVT007InVT Classified
    edited May 2014 Posts: 893
    I don't have the time to go back 15 pages but has anyone mentioned Mark Strong as Blofeld?

    It would re-unite Craig and Strong from 'Our Friends in the North' days, which started their careers. I think Strong is perfect as a Bond villain.

    86443c6b5715b8beb66451e0e59f354e.jpg
  • Posts: 11,119
    Are there actually some casting rumours about the leading Bond villain?
  • Posts: 11,119
    Anyone?
  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    edited August 2014 Posts: 13,355
  • Posts: 11,119
    Samuel001 wrote: »

    Hmmm, I heard this name here on the forum a few times. But it's really the first name being mentioned then. I am....not that enthusiastic about Chiwetel Ejiofor yet. He hasn't got the CV that, let's say, Javier Bardem has. Not to mention Christoph Waltz, Daniel-Day Lewis, Michael Shannon and Michael Fassbender.

    It is of my opinion, that the sheer name of Javier Bardem resulted in extra cinema audiences, hence the 1 Billion Dollar Bond. Brand recognition, even among actors, is important.

    On the other hand, I love Ejiofor's face. He has this unique, original, menacing face, that also Bardem has. And he did have a great role in "American Gangster".
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    edited August 2014 Posts: 18,264
    I hope no-one plays Blofeld and that he does not return. Bond films need to move on from their past and embrace the future...
  • edited August 2014 Posts: 4,622
    Holmes has been battling Moriarity for ever and in every new iteration of the character's adventures it seems.
    I am sure the new Man From Uncle will still be fighting the forces of Thrush in the new film.
    Bond versus Blofeld and Spectre need never die. I'm not sure Eon would have even killed off Ernst in FYEO, if McClory hadn't been such a thorn in their side.
    Eon made a point of keeping Blofeld's fate ambiguous at the end of DAF, no doubt planning on bringing him back down the line. In fact as we all know, Ernst was touted for a return in TSWLM. What could have been.
  • Posts: 15,106
    I sure hope Ejiofor is NOT cast as Blofeld. He is nothing like Blofeld.

    And please, no bald actor either.
  • Posts: 11,119
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    I hope no-one plays Blofeld and that he does not return. Bond films need to move on from their past and embrace the future...

    So...simply forget about Ian Fleming's legacy? Simply throwing away iconic characters? Perhaps not a return of "Q" and "Moneypenny" after all, because "we need to do it different" and "we need to move on"?

    For me, Blofeld is an iconic character in the Fleming-universe that, like Bond, 'M', 'Q' and Moneypenny, can be molded into a perfect fresh character into today's geopolitical environment.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,351
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    I hope no-one plays Blofeld and that he does not return. Bond films need to move on from their past and embrace the future...

    So...simply forget about Ian Fleming's legacy? Simply throwing away iconic characters? Perhaps not a return of "Q" and "Moneypenny" after all, because "we need to do it different" and "we need to move on"?

    For me, Blofeld is an iconic character in the Fleming-universe that, like Bond, 'M', 'Q' and Moneypenny, can be molded into a perfect fresh character into today's geopolitical environment.

    Blofeld isn't Fleming's legacy JAMES BOND is. Blofeld has seen his day and it's long passed. I think it's nice that Bond has new adventures and new enemies. Not rehashed stories that we've seen. If Blofeld returns, others will start clamoring for other villains to return. First people complain about the DB5 having weapons yet Blofeld coming back is okay? Hypocritical if you ask me.
  • Posts: 15,106
    Except that Blofeld, unlike the gadget laden DB5, IS a character from Fleming, who was very important in the series and is Bond's nemesis, just like Moriarty is Sherlock Holmes's. Yes, he has been overused in the past, but he was also misused in the past. We have a new continuity, why not a new Blofeld? Done properly this time, as Bond's polar opposite, sans the bald head and the scar.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    edited August 2014 Posts: 16,351
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Except that Blofeld, unlike the gadget laden DB5, IS a character from Fleming, who was very important in the series and is Bond's nemesis, just like Moriarty is Sherlock Holmes's. Yes, he has been overused in the past, but he was also misused in the past. We have a new continuity, why not a new Blofeld? Done properly this time, as Bond's polar opposite, sans the bald head and the scar.

    Why not just create a new arch enemy? Bond isn't Sherlock Holmes, Holmes has had less enemies than Bond has. James T. Kirk's Moriarty must be Khan yet has fought others more times than he has Khan. (yet was done horrible in Star Trek into darkness.) Stay original and no rehash of old characters. Blofeld was done right in OHMSS. Leave him be with dignity and not bring him back just for nostalgia.
  • Posts: 11,119
    Murdock wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Except that Blofeld, unlike the gadget laden DB5, IS a character from Fleming, who was very important in the series and is Bond's nemesis, just like Moriarty is Sherlock Holmes's. Yes, he has been overused in the past, but he was also misused in the past. We have a new continuity, why not a new Blofeld? Done properly this time, as Bond's polar opposite, sans the bald head and the scar.

    Why not just create a new arch enemy? Bond isn't Sherlock Holmes, Holmes has had less enemies than Bond has. James T. Kirk's Moriarty must be Klingons yet has fought others more times than he has Klingons. Stay original and no rehash of old characters. Blofeld was done right in OHMSS. Leave him be with dignity and not bring him back just for nostalgia.

    Well, I think for a series that is now running officially for 23 Bond films (unofficially 25), you can stay original by returning the name of a character. If you only use an argument for the sake of originality, then why bother bringing back "Q" and Moneypenny?

    Also, if you are forcing yourself to stay "original", things can also go wrong. Just simply embrace your own legacy man. There's nothing wrong with that.
Sign In or Register to comment.