SPECTRE: So who's going to play Ernst?

1212224262754

Comments

  • Campbell2Campbell2 Epsilon Rho Rho house, Bending State University
    Posts: 299
    600full-ulrich-matthes.jpg

    I remember Ulrich Matthes once was up for a villain, either CR or QOS. In the looks department he doesn't match the description given in TB. But the eyes are pure villain material, this guy's my Blofeld.
  • HASEROTHASEROT has returned like the tedious inevitability of an unloved season---
    edited November 2014 Posts: 4,399
    (deleted)
  • Those who say that Blofeld belongs in the past and that we should move on and create new character don't get it. Blofeld is Bond's iconic foil, like the Joker to Batman, or Moriarty to Sherlock. These are such classic character that you can't just throw them to the wind and move on, you should re-imagine and reinvigorate the rivalry again and again over time.

    Now it's understandable that Bond fans would not want a bald guy with a scar stroking a cat to return because Dr. Evil has ruined what was already a silly character portrayal. But, this idea we have of Blofeld is not how he appeared in the books, and in the Craig era, returning to the Fleming-esq is popular.

    Thirdly, a figure like Blofeld, or an organization like SPECTRE are the perfect enemy for Bond right now. When you look back to Skyfall, the big theme was proving that today spies are more needed than ever because there are bad people lurking in the shadows. This is also true in the real world ad the threat to Western Civilization is not a nation, but faceless terror groups who operate in secret and slip through the fingers of conventional warfare.

    Bond is the perfect hero to fight terror in the world, and Blofeld is the perfect character to make as the face of terror in our world because its easier, or perhaps more comforting to think that, these small bands of poor terrorist groups around the world are actually part of a bigger more organized conspiracy. This is preferable because it not only makes us feel better about not being able to defeat them easily in real life, but on screen by giving them a centralized character like Blofeld its easier for a character like Bond to fight a larger network through one single figure and organization.
  • edited October 2014 Posts: 11,119
    Those who say that Blofeld belongs in the past and that we should move on and create new character don't get it. Blofeld is Bond's iconic foil, like the Joker to Batman, or Moriarty to Sherlock. These are such classic character that you can't just throw them to the wind and move on, you should re-imagine and reinvigorate the rivalry again and again over time.

    Now it's understandable that Bond fans would not want a bald guy with a scar stroking a cat to return because Dr. Evil has ruined what was already a silly character portrayal. But, this idea we have of Blofeld is not how he appeared in the books, and in the Craig era, returning to the Fleming-esq is popular.

    Thirdly, a figure like Blofeld, or an organization like SPECTRE are the perfect enemy for Bond right now. When you look back to Skyfall, the big theme was proving that today spies are more needed than ever because there are bad people lurking in the shadows. This is also true in the real world ad the threat to Western Civilization is not a nation, but faceless terror groups who operate in secret and slip through the fingers of conventional warfare.

    Bond is the perfect hero to fight terror in the world, and Blofeld is the perfect character to make as the face of terror in our world because its easier, or perhaps more comforting to think that, these small bands of poor terrorist groups around the world are actually part of a bigger more organized conspiracy. This is preferable because it not only makes us feel better about not being able to defeat them easily in real life, but on screen by giving them a centralized character like Blofeld its easier for a character like Bond to fight a larger network through one single figure and organization.

    I completely agree @SirSeanIsBond. Moreover, what is happening right now with the Craig films is rather unique in the history of the Bond franchise. Every character is slowly, in a nuanced way, re-introduced during the course of three films.

    --> From James Bond himself (CR, QOS and SF completely rejuvenated 007) to 'Q' (a nice nerdy young fella, "who's afraid of flying").
    --> From really a too old 'M' making mistakes, showing her age, to a new one (Man, what wonderful stuff Dench did to the character. A true Bond-girl).
    --> From Bond's first shots that got him his 00-licence ('M' mentioned it several times: "I know it was too early to promote you" in CR, and "And then I got 6 agents in return after the Hong Kong handover" in SF) to the first shots of Miss Moneypenny in SF.
    --> From Bond's first "wife" Vesper, whom he loved with all his heart, to drinking it aaway with a "bitter Vesper" (and moreover, to Bond's transformation into a more suave, funnier agent)
    --> From the historical background of 'M' in Hong Kong (it proves we have a new timeline here) to really Bond's extensive past (Bond's dad Andrew Bond and Bond's mummy Monique DeLacroix, as written in "YOLT")
    --> And then we have the trilogy complete: From the first black-and-white shots of Bond in CR too the wonderful leather-paneled doors in 'M's and Moneypenny's office.

    CR-QOS-SF really gave us the closest to a fully rounded trilogy. Something that wasn't even possible when back in 1962 "Cubby" and Harry really had to choose, to go for the most easy-to-adapt Ian Fleming novel "Doctor No" ("OHMSS" and even "TB" were a complete no go back in 1962, due to production impossibilities and other legal and financial issues).

    Now the Bond franchise has been re-invented in an unprecedented way. The job is done. But now it's time to focus on another character that is a creation of Ian Fleming. Not Bond (well, always Bond), not 'M' (well, perhaps Mallory needs some more introduction), not Miss Moneypenny or even 'Q'. No, now it's time for Blofeld.

    We know that "re-inventing the wheel" can be such a meaningful and creative way of filmmaking. Even more so, if one wants to stay loyal to the source material, then "re-inventing the wheel" is perhaps even a necessity, especially for 52 year old franchises.

    Having said that, I think it's a marvelous idea to let Bond now do a "plain, solid work", as 'M' once said in "Diamonds Are Forever". But you need to be careful that the upcoming two or three Bond films don't turn into the same pastiche and cheese, like Connery's last two Bond films and most of Moore's and Brosnan's film.

    So what do you do then? Off course you won't turn Bond into a set of too formularic films now the "CR-QOS-SF"-trilogy is complete. You need to keep reinvigorating. It's what gave the films with Craig so much more depth, meaning and historical perspective. And there's no better way of start proving all skeptical fans wrong and grab that character called "Ernst Stavro Blofeld" by his balls and mold him, over a course of two or perhaps three Bond films, into a meaningful arch nemesis of Bond, adapted to our geopolitical world, and with the same layers of emotional depth that Bond has now. Certainly not a gay catstroking Dr. Evil! And on top of that we can perhaps see how Blofeld himself molds the ineffective and compromised QUANTUM into a way more dangerous and criminal brotherhood called S.P.E.C.T.R.E., that works effectively "in the shadows" and that is "not part of a nation". How did Dr. No once put it? "The West, the East...fools....two parts on the same compass!"

    Also remember, introducing Blofeld back in the 1960's always was a rather troubled affair. Full creative freedom was prevented, "Cubby" and Harry always had to be careful with some of the characters from "Thunderball", because a certain producer called Kevin McGlory turned into a real-life Blofeld himself. Secondly, we've seen what "re-inventing the wheel" can do to other film franchises. The Joker? Need I say more? We need to cherish Fleming's legacy more, Blofeld included.

    I think this sums it up perfectly. Time to get both Blofeld and S.P.E.C.T.R.E. back. BUT re-introduce him slowly, over a course of two to three movies. Perhaps only give him a minor, but gripping faceless cameo in the upcoming 24th Bond film?
  • Posts: 11,119
    Those who say that Blofeld belongs in the past and that we should move on and create new character don't get it. Blofeld is Bond's iconic foil, like the Joker to Batman, or Moriarty to Sherlock. These are such classic character that you can't just throw them to the wind and move on, you should re-imagine and reinvigorate the rivalry again and again over time.

    Now it's understandable that Bond fans would not want a bald guy with a scar stroking a cat to return because Dr. Evil has ruined what was already a silly character portrayal. But, this idea we have of Blofeld is not how he appeared in the books, and in the Craig era, returning to the Fleming-esq is popular.

    Thirdly, a figure like Blofeld, or an organization like SPECTRE are the perfect enemy for Bond right now. When you look back to Skyfall, the big theme was proving that today spies are more needed than ever because there are bad people lurking in the shadows. This is also true in the real world ad the threat to Western Civilization is not a nation, but faceless terror groups who operate in secret and slip through the fingers of conventional warfare.

    Bond is the perfect hero to fight terror in the world, and Blofeld is the perfect character to make as the face of terror in our world because its easier, or perhaps more comforting to think that, these small bands of poor terrorist groups around the world are actually part of a bigger more organized conspiracy. This is preferable because it not only makes us feel better about not being able to defeat them easily in real life, but on screen by giving them a centralized character like Blofeld its easier for a character like Bond to fight a larger network through one single figure and organization.

    I completely agree @SirSeanIsBond. Moreover, what is happening right now with the Craig films is rather unique in the history of the Bond franchise. Every character is slowly, in a nuanced way, re-introduced during the course of three films.

    --> From James Bond himself (CR, QOS and SF completely rejuvenated 007) to 'Q' (a nice nerdy young fella, "who's afraid of flying").
    --> From really a too old 'M' making mistakes, showing her age, to a new one (Man, what wonderful stuff Dench did to the character. A true Bond-girl).
    --> From Bond's first shots that got him his 00-licence ('M' mentioned it several times: "I know it was too early to promote you" in CR, and "And then I got 6 agents in return after the Hong Kong handover" in SF) to the first shots of Miss Moneypenny in SF.
    --> From Bond's first "wife" Vesper, whom he loved with all his heart, to drinking it aaway with a "bitter Vesper" (and moreover, to Bond's transformation into a more suave, funnier agent)
    --> From the historical background of 'M' in Hong Kong (it proves we have a new timeline here) to really Bond's extensive past (Bond's dad Andrew Bond and Bond's mummy Monique DeLacroix, as written in "YOLT")
    --> And then we have the trilogy complete: From the first black-and-white shots of Bond in CR too the wonderful leather-paneled doors in 'M's and Moneypenny's office.

    CR-QOS-SF really gave us the closest to a fully rounded trilogy. Something that wasn't even possible when back in 1962 "Cubby" and Harry really had to choose, to go for the most easy-to-adapt Ian Fleming novel "Doctor No" ("OHMSS" and even "TB" were a complete no go back in 1962, due to production impossibilities and other legal and financial issues).

    Now the Bond franchise has been re-invented in an unprecedented way. The job is done. But now it's time to focus on another character that is a creation of Ian Fleming. Not Bond (well, always Bond), not 'M' (well, perhaps Mallory needs some more introduction), not Miss Moneypenny or even 'Q'. No, now it's time for Blofeld.

    We know that "re-inventing the wheel" can be such a meaningful and creative way of filmmaking. Even more so, if one wants to stay loyal to the source material, then "re-inventing the wheel" is perhaps even a necessity, especially for 52 year old franchises.

    Having said that, I think it's a marvelous idea to let Bond now do a "plain, solid work", as 'M' once said in "Diamonds Are Forever". But you need to be careful that the upcoming two or three Bond films don't turn into the same pastiche and cheese, like Connery's last two Bond films and most of Moore's and Brosnan's film.

    So what do you do then? Off course you won't turn Bond into a set of too formularic films now the "CR-QOS-SF"-trilogy is complete. You need to keep reinvigorating. It's what gave the films with Craig so much more depth, meaning and historical perspective. And there's no better way of start proving all skeptical fans wrong and grab that character called "Ernst Stavro Blofeld" by his balls and mold him, over a course of two or perhaps three Bond films, into a meaningful arch nemesis of Bond, adapted to our geopolitical world, and with the same layers of emotional depth that Bond has now. Certainly not a gay catstroking Dr. Evil! And on top of that we can perhaps see how Blofeld himself molds the ineffective and compromised QUANTUM into a way more dangerous and criminal brotherhood called S.P.E.C.T.R.E., that works effectively "in the shadows" and that is "not part of a nation". How did Dr. No once put it? "The West, the East...fools....two parts on the same compass!"

    Also remember, introducing Blofeld back in the 1960's always was a rather troubled affair. Full creative freedom was prevented, "Cubby" and Harry always had to be careful with some of the characters from "Thunderball", because a certain producer called Kevin McGlory turned into a real-life Blofeld himself. Secondly, we've seen what "re-inventing the wheel" can do to other film franchises. The Joker? Need I say more? We need to cherish Fleming's legacy more, Blofeld included.

    I think this sums it up perfectly. Time to get both Blofeld and S.P.E.C.T.R.E. back. BUT re-introduce him slowly, over a course of two to three movies. Perhaps only give him a minor, but gripping faceless cameo in the upcoming 24th Bond film?
  • Posts: 11,119
    Curious what other people think of this :)
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,351
    Bond doesn't need Blofeld to be good.
    88610-Beating-Dead-Horse-gif-Imgur-gxz1.gif
  • Posts: 11,119
    Murdock wrote: »
    Bond doesn't need Blofeld to be good.
    88610-Beating-Dead-Horse-gif-Imgur-gxz1.gif

    Elaborate. I see you like to replace the white persian cat....for a horse ;-)?
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    edited October 2014 Posts: 16,351
    Murdock wrote: »
    Bond doesn't need Blofeld to be good.
    88610-Beating-Dead-Horse-gif-Imgur-gxz1.gif

    Elaborate. I see you like to replace the white persian cat....for a horse ;-)?

    The point of Bond is to be progressive and see new things and new threats. We've seen Blofeld already. Bond has been doing just fine without Blofeld for 40 years.

    Bringing Blofeld back for the sake of "He was Iconic" Is a step backwards. You might as well bring back Dr. No, Goldfinger ect...
  • Posts: 15,106
    webside80 wrote: »
    Mark Strong was previously linked with Bond 24, could he be lined up for Blofeld?? He looks like quite a calculating, menacing person :)

    Too bald.
    AdaShelby wrote: »
    I think Stellan Skarsgard would be a perfect choice. He can look so menacing yet trustworthy at the same time which could work for a new Blofeld.

    Another one who would have been great ten or fifteen years ago.But his face is maybe a bit too soft. Then again that can be corrected.
  • Posts: 15,106
    Murdock wrote: »
    Murdock wrote: »
    Bond doesn't need Blofeld to be good.
    88610-Beating-Dead-Horse-gif-Imgur-gxz1.gif

    Elaborate. I see you like to replace the white persian cat....for a horse ;-)?

    The point of Bond is to be progressive and see new things and new threats. We've seen Blofeld already. Bond has been doing just fine without Blofeld for 40 years.

    Bringing Blofeld back for the sake of "He was Iconic" Is a step backwards. You might as well bring back Dr. No, Goldfinger ect...

    Except none of them have been messed up like Blofeld and Blofeld was never properly developed, except, but only partially, in OHMSS.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,351
    I disagree. He was developed but in YOLT he was given little to nothing to do except try to be menacing. OHMSS he was done right and DAF it wasn't Blofeld.

    But Blofeld not being close to his literary counterpart shouldn't apply as Many of Fleming's villains weren't close to theirs either. Dr. No didn't have metal hands or didn't look like how he was written, Scaramanga wasn't a flamboyant Assassin who owned a solar panel island. Goldfinger didn't have a laser. Drax wasn't Space Hitler ect.

    Bringing Blofeld back in the modern Bond era, might sound good on paper, but It's execution will be difficult to do because people will just compare it to the original versions. It's a Win, Lose situation. You bring back one to do him to the book, you'll have to do the others. I've said this time and time again on the other threads. It's beating a dead horse. Let Blofeld stay in the past with dignity and focus on creating new and unused ideas rather than doing over old ideas but maybe better. Bond was rebooted, not remade.
  • @Murdock, let me ask you something. How did you feel about them bringing back Q in Skyfall? Or how did you feel about them setting up Ralph Fiennes as the new Bernard Lee M? Because those were character we had done without for a while. Why did they need to come back?
  • Posts: 11,119
    @Murdock, let me ask you something. How did you feel about them bringing back Q in Skyfall? Or how did you feel about them setting up Ralph Fiennes as the new Bernard Lee M? Because those were character we had done without for a while. Why did they need to come back

    Indeed @Sirseanisbond. You basically sum up the essence of my previous, elaborated set of arguments perfectly.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,351
    @sirseanisbond, I'm quite fine with Skyfall's Q because he isn't trying to be Desmond Llewelyn or John Cleese. He's a completely different character with the title of Q. Ralph Fines as M, same thing because he isn't Bernard Lee's M. he's someone else. They aren't redone versions of Geoffrey Boothroyd and Sir Miles Messervy. They are completely new people who just hold the title of "Q" and "M" Blofeld on the other hand is a person. Not a title.
  • Murdock wrote: »
    @sirseanisbond, I'm quite fine with Skyfall's Q because he isn't trying to be Desmond Llewelyn or John Cleese. He's a completely different character with the title of Q. Ralph Fines as M, same thing because he isn't Bernard Lee's M. he's someone else. They aren't redone versions of Geoffrey Boothroyd and Sir Miles Messervy. They are completely new people who just hold the title of "Q" and "M" Blofeld on the other hand is a person. Not a title.

    That is where you and I differ completely! I see Blofeld as another Title that can be redone in a new way just the same as Q or M, and it can be redone in a better way!
  • Posts: 11,119
    Murdock wrote: »
    @sirseanisbond, I'm quite fine with Skyfall's Q because he isn't trying to be Desmond Llewelyn or John Cleese. He's a completely different character with the title of Q. Ralph Fines as M, same thing because he isn't Bernard Lee's M. he's someone else. They aren't redone versions of Geoffrey Boothroyd and Sir Miles Messervy. They are completely new people who just hold the title of "Q" and "M" Blofeld on the other hand is a person. Not a title.

    Exactly! But his name is still "Q" no? Not a nerdy guy named William Petticoat. You say it basically. "He is a completely different character". So can Blofeld be.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,351
    Murdock wrote: »
    @sirseanisbond, I'm quite fine with Skyfall's Q because he isn't trying to be Desmond Llewelyn or John Cleese. He's a completely different character with the title of Q. Ralph Fines as M, same thing because he isn't Bernard Lee's M. he's someone else. They aren't redone versions of Geoffrey Boothroyd and Sir Miles Messervy. They are completely new people who just hold the title of "Q" and "M" Blofeld on the other hand is a person. Not a title.

    That is where you and I differ completely! I see Blofeld as another Title that can be redone in a new way just the same as Q or M, and it can be redone in a better way!

    You can see it that way all you want but that doesn't change the fact that Ernst Stavro Blofeld is a person and not a title given to super villains.
  • Murdock wrote: »
    Murdock wrote: »
    @sirseanisbond, I'm quite fine with Skyfall's Q because he isn't trying to be Desmond Llewelyn or John Cleese. He's a completely different character with the title of Q. Ralph Fines as M, same thing because he isn't Bernard Lee's M. he's someone else. They aren't redone versions of Geoffrey Boothroyd and Sir Miles Messervy. They are completely new people who just hold the title of "Q" and "M" Blofeld on the other hand is a person. Not a title.

    That is where you and I differ completely! I see Blofeld as another Title that can be redone in a new way just the same as Q or M, and it can be redone in a better way!

    You can see it that way all you want but that doesn't change the fact that Ernst Stavro Blofeld is a person and not a title given to super villains.

    Ok, Bond isn't a name that you give to a british spy in a film, but he has changed over time too, not just physically from actor to actor, but from performance to performance. If Bond was re-booted with CR, Blofeld can be re-booted in Bond 24
  • Posts: 1,548
    Still not too late for the ideal Blofeld imo, Sir Tony Hopkins
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,351
    Bond isn't a Codename, he's always been the same despite being played by different actors. Blofeld could be rebooted but that doesn't mean it's a good idea in the wake of cinematic reboots bringing back classic villains for the sake of "They were iconic" It could be good or disastrous. Bond is better when the films are being original and setting trends, not following them. In the 60's Bond films were inspiring other films, and now other films are inspiring Bond films in this decade. I want Bond to be above that. Let's see some new ideas and new iconic villains for a change. The point of this reboot was to wipe the slate clean and go on a fresh new direction. The last three Bond films have been wonderful, doing their own thing and not relying on the "Formula" set when Goldfinger came out. Le Chiffre and Silva have been far more entertaining and better villains than Blofeld has. I want more villains like them.
  • Posts: 15,106
    Murdock wrote: »
    I disagree. He was developed but in YOLT he was given little to nothing to do except try to be menacing. OHMSS he was done right and DAF it wasn't Blofeld.

    But Blofeld not being close to his literary counterpart shouldn't apply as Many of Fleming's villains weren't close to theirs either. Dr. No didn't have metal hands or didn't look like how he was written, Scaramanga wasn't a flamboyant Assassin who owned a solar panel island. Goldfinger didn't have a laser. Drax wasn't Space Hitler ect.

    Bringing Blofeld back in the modern Bond era, might sound good on paper, but It's execution will be difficult to do because people will just compare it to the original versions. It's a Win, Lose situation. You bring back one to do him to the book, you'll have to do the others. I've said this time and time again on the other threads. It's beating a dead horse. Let Blofeld stay in the past with dignity and focus on creating new and unused ideas rather than doing over old ideas but maybe better. Bond was rebooted, not remade.

    Dr No was in essence the same character. Yes, his appearance was different, the basics were there and he was pretty much the same character. Same goes with Goldfinger, that he did not use a lazer in the novel is a cosmetic difference, at the most. Drax was indeed very different, in a movie that was not truly an adaptation, even a free one... and that is why many people think MR should be adapted properly. AND Drax's characteristics and background were subsequently used in a number of villains (Zorin, Trevelyan, Graves, even more recently Silva).

    Who will compare Blofeld to the original version? And which original version are you talking about? The movie one? Joe Public does not know Blofeld, he knows Dr Evil. The original Blofeld will be compared no more nor less than any other villains from Fleming's mind. You mention Blofeld staying in the past with dignity. He didn't have much dignity when he left the franchise. Or even in DAF. He was also a rather pale villain in YOLT, come to think of it. Hence my comment: Blofeld was rarely developed, except in OHMSS, only to regress in subsequent movies.
  • Posts: 15,106
    Murdock wrote: »
    Bond isn't a Codename, he's always been the same despite being played by different actors. Blofeld could be rebooted but that doesn't mean it's a good idea in the wake of cinematic reboots bringing back classic villains for the sake of "They were iconic" It could be good or disastrous. Bond is better when the films are being original and setting trends, not following them. In the 60's Bond films were inspiring other films, and now other films are inspiring Bond films in this decade. I want Bond to be above that. Let's see some new ideas and new iconic villains for a change. The point of this reboot was to wipe the slate clean and go on a fresh new direction. The last three Bond films have been wonderful, doing their own thing and not relying on the "Formula" set when Goldfinger came out. Le Chiffre and Silva have been far more entertaining and better villains than Blofeld has. I want more villains like them.

    Yet FRWL was influenced by Hitchcock, Dr No is a bastard child of Fu Manchu, Blofeld of Moriarty, etc. Heck, the novel OHMSS and Dracula have a lot of similarities. Because in fiction, of course you are going to be influenced by other works. Sticking to a new villain every time can also become by the number and repetitive. A resilient villain brings his own sense of menace.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,351
    Bringing back an Iconic villain can be seen as By the numbers and repetitive too in the wake of these reboots. (For good or bad.)

    I've said my reasons time and time again on why I don't want Blofeld back so I'm not going to repeat myself.
  • Posts: 2,341
    We keep discussing why or why Blofeld should or should not be brought back. I said it before and I will say it again:

    Blofeld was a product of the sixties Bond and other Spy genre films.
    Austin Powers successfully killed any hope of bring him back
    We don't need Blofeld or SPECTRE these days, we still have Quantum and Mr. White

    Besides what would a modern 21st century update of this beloved villain be like?
    He would have to be more like Warren Buffet or the Koch Brothers to mean any real menace nowadays.
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    Murdock wrote: »
    This thread.
    beating-a-dead-horse-animated-gif.gif


    =)) ...can you please post this to every thread lol jk
  • HASEROTHASEROT has returned like the tedious inevitability of an unloved season---
    edited November 2014 Posts: 4,399
    (deleted)
  • Posts: 11,119
    HASEROT wrote: »
    Murdock wrote: »
    @sirseanisbond, I'm quite fine with Skyfall's Q because he isn't trying to be Desmond Llewelyn or John Cleese. He's a completely different character with the title of Q. Ralph Fines as M, same thing because he isn't Bernard Lee's M. he's someone else. They aren't redone versions of Geoffrey Boothroyd and Sir Miles Messervy. They are completely new people who just hold the title of "Q" and "M" Blofeld on the other hand is a person. Not a title.

    Exactly! But his name is still "Q" no? Not a nerdy guy named William Petticoat. You say it basically. "He is a completely different character". So can Blofeld be.

    so let me get this straight....... just because Q (short for 'Quartermaster' - head of the arms department known as Q Branch) and M are titles given to different people playing completely different characters (John Cleese was not Major Boothroyd, and Robert Brown was not Miles Messervy)... that makes it more than suitable to suggest that the name - THE NAME, not title, name - of Ernst Stavro Blofeld could be used as an official title given to different people??

    that is quite simply one the dumbest things i've ever heard anyone suggest....... anyone.... ever..........

    are you really Lee Tamahori trolling us??

    Look who's talking. You know how to quote the things no? Before that post I basically posted a whole essay, which you didn't even quote at the slightest.

    Al I wanted to say is: Bond, Q, M, Moneypenny's......they have all been reinvented properly. So it can be done with a villain too. Blofeld that is.

    By the way, know the definition of "trolling" please. I am discussing, with passion, and always with extensive set of arguments. Like @Getafix, @Doubleoego, @RC7, @Ludovico and @SirSeanIsBond do as well. Guys who I respect, who know how to discuss. That's why I like the forum. And it makes being a Bond fan so much more fun. Don't accuse me of things I'm not doing.
  • HASEROTHASEROT has returned like the tedious inevitability of an unloved season---
    edited November 2014 Posts: 4,399
    (deleted)
  • Posts: 11,119
    HASEROT wrote: »
    HASEROT wrote: »
    Murdock wrote: »
    @sirseanisbond, I'm quite fine with Skyfall's Q because he isn't trying to be Desmond Llewelyn or John Cleese. He's a completely different character with the title of Q. Ralph Fines as M, same thing because he isn't Bernard Lee's M. he's someone else. They aren't redone versions of Geoffrey Boothroyd and Sir Miles Messervy. They are completely new people who just hold the title of "Q" and "M" Blofeld on the other hand is a person. Not a title.

    Exactly! But his name is still "Q" no? Not a nerdy guy named William Petticoat. You say it basically. "He is a completely different character". So can Blofeld be.

    so let me get this straight....... just because Q (short for 'Quartermaster' - head of the arms department known as Q Branch) and M are titles given to different people playing completely different characters (John Cleese was not Major Boothroyd, and Robert Brown was not Miles Messervy)... that makes it more than suitable to suggest that the name - THE NAME, not title, name - of Ernst Stavro Blofeld could be used as an official title given to different people??

    that is quite simply one the dumbest things i've ever heard anyone suggest....... anyone.... ever..........

    are you really Lee Tamahori trolling us??

    Look who's talking. You know how to quote the things no? Before that post I basically posted a whole essay, which you didn't even quote at the slightest.

    Al I wanted to say is: Bond, Q, M, Moneypenny's......they have all been reinvented properly. So it can be done with a villain too. Blofeld that is.

    By the way, know the definition of "trolling" please. I am discussing, with passion, and always with extensive set of arguments. Like @Getafix, @Doubleoego, @RC7, @Ludovico and @SirSeanIsBond do as well. Guys who I respect, who know how to discuss. That's why I like the forum. And it makes being a Bond fan so much more fun. Don't accuse me of things I'm not doing.

    don't get so defensive... and while I busy myself looking up the definition of "Trolling", you might want to look up the definition of "Sarcasm"....

    Use more smilies. I can not smell your sarcasm :-).
Sign In or Register to comment.