SPECTRE: So who's going to play Ernst?

1242527293054

Comments

  • edited November 2014 Posts: 15,229
    And how about making Blofeld like Fleming wrote it? That would certainly be original. And new. Because I haven't seen that character in the movies. Or barely.
  • Ludovico wrote: »
    And how about making Blofeld like Fleming wrote it? That would certainly be original. And new. Because I haven't seen that character in the movies. Or barely.

    Exactly! It's a WIN WIN!!!
  • ThunderpussyThunderpussy My Secret Lair
    Posts: 13,384
    I definitely think Blofeld will not be in a Nehru suit stroking a white cat.
    If he does return, I'm sure he'll be a contemporary villain. :)
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,359
    Murdock wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Worthless argument. Can we call it the dead horse fallacy?
    What's wrong with wanting original stories and characters rather than the fanwankery path and resurrecting a long dead character?

    We've had original stories and characters for 43 YEARS!!! 16 FILMS!!! How long do you have to wait? I understand wanting to have originality, but why don't you see how a lot of people also want something familiar! Whether you like it of not, Blofeld will come back, and I'm sure it will be sooner rather than later. And @Murdock, if you had to chose someone to play Blofeld, would Waltz not be a great candidate? Answer honestly now...

    The Bond films have been Original and Familiar. I don't want to see the same characters and tropes over and over again that gets BORING. I don't see what other see because I am me. I speak for myself and myself alone. I'm not Joe Public. I want a good entertaining film with James Bond taking us to new places and showing us new ladies and new threads. Not Hey look remember when we did this and did that! And remember Blofeld! Well he's back! Here he is look at him LOOK AT HIM! I'll take a new direction thank you. Not the been there done that direction.
  • Posts: 12,526
    DrGorner wrote: »
    I definitely think Blofeld will not be in a Nehru suit stroking a white cat.
    If he does return, I'm sure he'll be a contemporary villain. :)

    I would be surprised if he returned at all? What next? A young Oddjob? A young Jaws? Let them remain in the past!
  • Murdock wrote: »
    Murdock wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Worthless argument. Can we call it the dead horse fallacy?
    What's wrong with wanting original stories and characters rather than the fanwankery path and resurrecting a long dead character?

    We've had original stories and characters for 43 YEARS!!! 16 FILMS!!! How long do you have to wait? I understand wanting to have originality, but why don't you see how a lot of people also want something familiar! Whether you like it of not, Blofeld will come back, and I'm sure it will be sooner rather than later. And @Murdock, if you had to chose someone to play Blofeld, would Waltz not be a great candidate? Answer honestly now...

    The Bond films have been Original and Familiar. I don't want to see the same characters and tropes over and over again that gets BORING. I don't see what other see because I am me. I speak for myself and myself alone. I'm not Joe Public. I want a good entertaining film with James Bond taking us to new places and showing us new ladies and new threads. Not Hey look remember when we did this and did that! And remember Blofeld! Well he's back! Here he is look at him LOOK AT HIM! I'll take a new direction thank you. Not the been there done that direction.

    But they've never been there or done the real, Fleming novel Blofeld! That would be New AND Familiar. And again, would Waltz not be a great actor to give the task of reviving the Blofeld role in a proper way?
  • Posts: 15,229
    RogueAgent wrote: »
    DrGorner wrote: »
    I definitely think Blofeld will not be in a Nehru suit stroking a white cat.
    If he does return, I'm sure he'll be a contemporary villain. :)

    I would be surprised if he returned at all? What next? A young Oddjob? A young Jaws? Let them remain in the past!

    Except they all have been done. Jaws was not even an original Fleming villain! Blofeld, on the other hand, has never been done before, not properly, not completely. And it's not because there are many new vampires that have shown up in cinema now that Dracula should never show up again. For the very same reason: he was never done faithfully.
  • ThunderpussyThunderpussy My Secret Lair
    Posts: 13,384
    I too don't want a return ( or remakes) of old villains but Blofeld to Bond
    Is almost like Moriarty to Holmes, the Joker to Batman, Ed Miliband to
    The labour party. A two or three story plot then he's done for another generation.
    But I'd be equally happy with a new dangerous villain, we can all get to know. :)
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,359
    Murdock wrote: »
    Murdock wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Worthless argument. Can we call it the dead horse fallacy?
    What's wrong with wanting original stories and characters rather than the fanwankery path and resurrecting a long dead character?

    We've had original stories and characters for 43 YEARS!!! 16 FILMS!!! How long do you have to wait? I understand wanting to have originality, but why don't you see how a lot of people also want something familiar! Whether you like it of not, Blofeld will come back, and I'm sure it will be sooner rather than later. And @Murdock, if you had to chose someone to play Blofeld, would Waltz not be a great candidate? Answer honestly now...

    The Bond films have been Original and Familiar. I don't want to see the same characters and tropes over and over again that gets BORING. I don't see what other see because I am me. I speak for myself and myself alone. I'm not Joe Public. I want a good entertaining film with James Bond taking us to new places and showing us new ladies and new threads. Not Hey look remember when we did this and did that! And remember Blofeld! Well he's back! Here he is look at him LOOK AT HIM! I'll take a new direction thank you. Not the been there done that direction.

    But they've never been there or done the real, Fleming novel Blofeld!

    Yes they have. It was only in DAF when they screwed him up.

    That would be New AND Familiar.
    Skyfall was more New and Familiar than ever. Not sure what movie you watched.

    And again, would Waltz not be a great actor to give the task of reviving the Blofeld role in a proper way?

    Waltz is a great actor. That was never in question. I'd rather he'd be free to act as someone new and fresh and not be bound to what's been done. EoN is pretty smart so I don't think they will Bring Blofeld back for the sake of it.
  • Posts: 15,229
    Murdock wrote: »
    Murdock wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Worthless argument. Can we call it the dead horse fallacy?
    What's wrong with wanting original stories and characters rather than the fanwankery path and resurrecting a long dead character?

    We've had original stories and characters for 43 YEARS!!! 16 FILMS!!! How long do you have to wait? I understand wanting to have originality, but why don't you see how a lot of people also want something familiar! Whether you like it of not, Blofeld will come back, and I'm sure it will be sooner rather than later. And @Murdock, if you had to chose someone to play Blofeld, would Waltz not be a great candidate? Answer honestly now...

    The Bond films have been Original and Familiar. I don't want to see the same characters and tropes over and over again that gets BORING. I don't see what other see because I am me. I speak for myself and myself alone. I'm not Joe Public. I want a good entertaining film with James Bond taking us to new places and showing us new ladies and new threads. Not Hey look remember when we did this and did that! And remember Blofeld! Well he's back! Here he is look at him LOOK AT HIM! I'll take a new direction thank you. Not the been there done that direction.

    Ian Fleming INVENTED, or at least crystallized certain tropes. His novels are all about recurring elements, similar characters and situations. There will always be Bond girls and larger than life villains. Blofeld is the epitome of the Bond villains. Not only that, he is his nemesis, like it or not.

    And you keep saying that he has been done already. Have you actually read the novels? Because the Blofeld from the movies is certainly not, with the partial exception of OHMSS, the Blofeld of the novels.
  • HASEROTHASEROT has returned like the tedious inevitability of an unloved season---
    edited November 2014 Posts: 4,399
    (deleted)
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,359
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Ian Fleming INVENTED, or at least crystallized certain tropes. His novels are all about recurring elements, similar characters and situations. There will always be Bond girls and larger than life villains. Blofeld is the epitome of the Bond villains. Not only that, he is his nemesis, like it or not.



    And you keep saying that he has been done already. Have you actually read the novels? Because the Blofeld from the movies is certainly not, with the partial exception of OHMSS, the Blofeld of the novels.

    Never got that feeling from the movies that Blofeld was Bond's nemesis.

    I've read several of the Novels. But that's irrelevant. I've watched all the films many times over. And from what I've read. Blofeld matched up to that in FRWL, TB, YOLT and OHMSS. A master at work behind the scenes forming delicate and intricate plans and he received a fitting end in FYEO short and sweet.

    Just because something happened to Bond doesn't mean the same things should always happen. I don't want to take a vacation to a different country only to eat at the same restaurants that they have here in America. Tropes are nice, but when repeatedly spammed it becomes an annoying cliche.
  • HASEROTHASEROT has returned like the tedious inevitability of an unloved season---
    edited November 2014 Posts: 4,399
    (deleted)
  • Posts: 15,229
    HASEROT wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Murdock wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Worthless argument. Can we call it the dead horse fallacy?
    What's wrong with wanting original stories and characters rather than the fanwankery path and resurrecting a long dead character?

    Like Moneypenny? Like Q? Like Felix Leiter? How about M? I am all for original stories and characters. I am also all for going back to Fleming. It is only fanwankery if it is done wrong.

    But in any case, the reintroduction of a Bond's nemesis is NOT a dead horse: it IS just as relevant as debates about say Moriarty in a Sherlock Holmes forum or a debate about Joker in Batman. Don't blame me if Blofeld happens to be Bond's nemesis. And don't give me the "but he couldn't kill Tracy in the new timeline" fallacy. Bond existed before Tracy.

    Moneypenny, Q (not in the books), Leiter, M, had more significance and impact to the Bond mythos than Blofeld did... there were villains before Blofeld, and there were villains after Blofeld - both in the books and in film.. he was only a part of 3 books, but was given more significance in the films... but people (such as yourself) put waay too much importance on him as a character, as if he was in there from day one battling Bond.... the only real significance he had as a character, was that he kills Bond's wife... other than that, he's really interchangeable with almost every other villain in the Bond universe.

    There were villains before Blofeld like there were villains before Moriarty (another nemesis who was promoted into the role). Being only in three books is more than any other Bond villains, unless you consider SMERSH.

    And I strongly disagree about the "but he killed Bond's wife" argument: Blofeld does it at the very end of OHMSS, the second books when he is featured, when his antagonism with Bond is already established. Making him a widower only consecrates it. I am not saying he is the only villain in the Bond universe. He is the most important one.
  • Posts: 15,229
    Murdock wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Ian Fleming INVENTED, or at least crystallized certain tropes. His novels are all about recurring elements, similar characters and situations. There will always be Bond girls and larger than life villains. Blofeld is the epitome of the Bond villains. Not only that, he is his nemesis, like it or not.


    And you keep saying that he has been done already. Have you actually read the novels? Because the Blofeld from the movies is certainly not, with the partial exception of OHMSS, the Blofeld of the novels.

    Never got that feeling from the movies that Blofeld was Bond's nemesis.

    I've read several of the Novels. But that's irrelevant. I've watched all the films many times over. And from what I've read. Blofeld matched up to that in FRWL, TB, YOLT and OHMSS. A master at work behind the scenes forming delicate and intricate plans and he received a fitting end in FYEO short and sweet.

    Just because something happened to Bond doesn't mean the same things should always happen. I don't want to take a vacation to a different country only to eat at the same restaurants that they have here in America. Tropes are nice, but when repeatedly spammed it becomes an annoying cliche.

    Oh please! In the movies Blofeld was featured in FRWL, TB, YOLT, DAF AND the main antagonist in the last three. He was meant to be the villain in TSWLM and would have been but for legal reasons. If that is not a nemesis, I don't know who can be.

    As for reading the novels, I think when it comes to original characters, it is very relevant. Because we are talking here about adapting a character from the source material. Moriarty was featured in two Holmes stories and mentioned in a few others in the original canon, that's it. He was invented as a foil to kill Holmes. Blofeld received far more attention and development from Fleming.
  • HASEROTHASEROT has returned like the tedious inevitability of an unloved season---
    edited November 2014 Posts: 4,399
    (deleted)
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    edited November 2014 Posts: 16,359
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Oh please! In the movies Blofeld was featured in FRWL, TB, YOLT, DAF AND the main antagonist in the last three. He was meant to be the villain in TSWLM and would have been but for legal reasons. If that is not a nemesis, I don't know who can be.

    I'm glad Blofeld wasn't in TSWLM. His character really would have been taken to Dr. Evil levels. Plus why is that a good thing? TSWLM is a clone of YOLT. Complete with vehicles eating other vehicles. If Blofeld was in it, It would have been a total remake! WHAT FUN.

    As for reading the novels, I think when it comes to original characters, it is very relevant. Because we are talking here about adapting a character from the source material. Moriarty was featured in two Holmes stories and mentioned in a few others in the original canon, that's it. He was invented as a foil to kill Holmes. Blofeld received far more attention and development from Fleming.

    I didn't mean the novel character was irrelevant. I meant that me reading the novels was irrelevant. Stop bringing up Moriarty and Holmes. They are completely different things. Blofeld wasn't invented to kill Bond. Every villain Bond came across tried to kill him. So he had many nemesis's. You must be easily amused by remakes.
  • Posts: 15,229
    The personal angle happened at the end of the second novel featuring him. At the end of the fourth movie featuring him and the fifth movie featuring SPECTRE. It consecrates Blofeld as Bond's nemesis, it is not all that constitutes him. You also have with him the polar opposite of Bond. He is his most resilient villain and the one with Drax and Goldfinger, and probably moreso than them, has the grandest schemes.
  • edited November 2014 Posts: 11,119
    HASEROT wrote: »
    i would rather want an as original a story as possible... Blofeld is old territory... i wouldn't mind a similar villain cut from the same mold - but i want something new.... rehashing old villains leads right back into the same ground we've trekked over time and time and time again... you bring back Blofeld - you might as well bring back Tracy and remake OHMSS.... simply absurd..

    It's complete utter bullocks in my opinion @Haserot. I have great respect for your funny "horse-slapping-picture" :-P. It actually makes me laugh. But serious now @Haserot. "Rehashing" sounds cheap. And your arguments basically only reflect your personal wishes.

    My arguments to bring back Blofeld and S.P.E.C.T.R.E.
    I actually think "something new and original" sounds very contradictive when you're talking about a 52-year old franchise. How the hell can you be completely original and new if we're heading into the 24th (26th if you count CR'67 and NSNA)? It isn't the case anyway with the past three Craig-films. Bond has been completely re-introduced....and a new timeline was created. Then the same happened to a new "M", completely ready for duty in Bernie Lee's old leather-panelled door office. No fance "new" office anymore like in QOS. Then if we re-assess your arguments we would have been better off with no "Q" and Moneypenny at all. Until QOS 007 could work perfectly without them no? But off course not. We were going to see them anytime soon anyway, original choice or not. And I'm glad they are back. Especially HOW they were brought back....in a creative way.

    Then....then there's the Ian Fleming-argument I want to bring up. We both are guys who always try to stay close to Ian Fleming's source material no? We chose not to come up with a complete new character name for the villain in "Casino Royale". I mean, according to your argument that would have been a logical choice no? The name "Le Chiffre" has written "cheesiness" all over it ever since that ridiculous spoof from 1967 premiered. No, Barbara and Michael were smarter than that. They completely re-invented the character. Made him slim, kind of sexy and suave....although they kept the benzeen inhaler (the gun in the walking stick was already used for Zukovsky in "TWINE"). On top of that, they give him a "bleeding" eye.

    So, BECAUSE of the fact that we always want to return to Fleming's source material, the fact that we take great pride in Fleming's characters, the fact that after 52 years of Bond movies the actual process of "re-inventing the wheel" in essence has become a rather unique kind of concept, similar to "re-inventing the wheel" of the Batman-franchise with The Joker, I simply can not see at all why bringing back S.P.E.C.T.R.E. and Blofeld would be a lacklustre and soul-less affair. Hell, the Bond films got their soul back through re-inventing the wheel. Especially after the franchise, and the old Bond timeline (1962 - 2002), slowly spiralled downwards towards an unoriginal, formularic, numb, winter sleep during the Brosnan-era.

    S.P.E.C.T.R.E and Blofeld are creations of the man I admire: Ian Fleming. Throwing them away like you suggest is in my opinion disrespectful towards his creations (Kevin McGlory would laugh from his grave....and I do not want that to happen). I also think it's important to note WHY Fleming created S.P.E.C.T.R.E. and Blofeld. It is for exactly the same reason as "M's" Tennyson-speech: "Our enemies are not nations. They are hiding in the shadows. And that's where we must do battle." Also Doctor No himself referred to this in 1962: "East, West, just points of the compass, each as stupid as the other." So let's stick some continuity this time around OK? Something that wasn't really possible in the 1960's.

    Now, we could use a completely different name for the syndicate, like QUANTUM, and for the villain, like Peres Antigua (just coming up with something. I'm creative too when it comes to think of new names), but then this only becomes a discussion about usage of names. And given my above arguments it's much better to stick to Fleming's names: S.P.E.C.T.R.E. and Blofeld.

    What could Christoph Waltz casting mean for Blofeld and S.P.E.C.T.R.E.?
    In all honesty, I do not think Waltz is going to play Blofeld. We already know his role will be rather large and will be complex of nature. It can be an ally, a villain or a bit of both. I personally think Waltz will play a character not that much different from Silva. An ex-ally who turned into a villain. But this time around I actually think we will see the process on screen, of the ally turning into a villain.

    Waltz could play a covert information source for MI6. A source that leaks important cables to MI6, but that slowly, during the movie, sells this information to a "new brotherhood" of somekind. A bit like Dryden did in "Casino Royale". Then at the end of Bond 24 Waltz has turned into a full operative of this new "brotherhood", being then revealed as S.P.E.C.T.R.E. He then is the new "Nr.2". And is even more complex than that old Nr.2, Emilio Largo. A bit of a Kronsteen/Largo-combo.

    Furthermore, at the end of the movie, we will have our first cameo of the Nr.1 operative. A man, who could very well be Blofeld. I think that's how Waltz role will turn out to be. Not the actual Blofeld, but at least an ally that during the movie will evolve into the villain, and a very important operative of S.P.E.C.T.R.E.

  • HASEROTHASEROT has returned like the tedious inevitability of an unloved season---
    edited November 2014 Posts: 4,399
    (deleted)
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    yeah but he doesn't not not need him either. Blofeld as written is an used character SPECTRE as written can easily be updated. No one has answered why not because it doesn't have to be old hat. Bond is an older character than Blofeld right? So wouldn't those same arguments apply?
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    Sorry double post but meant unused... okay now continue.. super sorry.
  • HASEROTHASEROT has returned like the tedious inevitability of an unloved season---
    edited November 2014 Posts: 4,399
    (deleted)
  • Seven_Point_Six_FiveSeven_Point_Six_Five Southern California
    edited December 2014 Posts: 1,257
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    yeah but he doesn't not not need him either.

    what-is-that.gif
  • Posts: 15,229
    RE: the hypothetical Christoph Waltz as Blofeld. IF he is indeed Blofeld, which is far from sure.

    it would be a god choice, he does look somewhat like OHMSS (the novel) Blofeld. Blofeld has if I am not mistaken some German blood, or claims his family has been in Germany after the French Revolution. However, he is a bit older for Blofeld (not that much of an issue though) and casting a German speaker as a villain always seems a bit of a cliché to me. But I'll take him over most people who have been suggested here.
  • HASEROT wrote: »
    (deleted)

    What happened with @Haserot :-(? Hopefully I didn't make him go away?
  • Posts: 12,526
    Ludovico wrote: »
    RogueAgent wrote: »
    DrGorner wrote: »
    I definitely think Blofeld will not be in a Nehru suit stroking a white cat.
    If he does return, I'm sure he'll be a contemporary villain. :)

    I would be surprised if he returned at all? What next? A young Oddjob? A young Jaws? Let them remain in the past!

    Except they all have been done. Jaws was not even an original Fleming villain! Blofeld, on the other hand, has never been done before, not properly, not completely. And it's not because there are many new vampires that have shown up in cinema now that Dracula should never show up again. For the very same reason: he was never done faithfully.

    Then give the Head of Quantum the traits of the literary Blofeld as i for one have not read any of the books! So to me it would be all new and to possibly many others? To the fans of the books it would be Blofeld in all but name.

    It baffles me as why using Quantum is a step backwards, yet using Blofeld AGAIN is not to some people?
  • Posts: 15,229
    For the record, I do think they need to finish the job with Quantum.

    Now for Blofeld, outside the fan world, he is not even a name, he is a bald man, with a scar, stroking a cat. Nobody will make the connection between the spoof and the character if you make the character right, even if he keeps the name. So why NOT bring back the name, providing they make the character more faithful?

    And it's like I said before: you can do worse than going back to the source material.
  • edited November 2014 Posts: 11,119
    HASEROT wrote: »
    (deleted)

    What happened with @Haserot :-(? Hopefully I didn't make him go away?

    I think it's fair to say that @Haserot needs to come back. He's a respected forummember. Can one of the moderators not email him? Or forward him to this topic....so we all get to know him a bit better?
    http://www.mi6community.com/index.php?p=/discussion/10087/care-to-discuss-via-facebook-or-skype#latest

    I had some issues myself with other forummembers, but it's not worth to leave :-(. Always agree to disagree in the end ok? Please urge him to come back....
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    edited November 2014 Posts: 12,480
    Plenty of us would love to have @haserot back on with us.

    As for the one comment I could still view of his: haserot said:
    i would rather want an as original a story as possible... Blofeld is old territory... i wouldn't mind a similar villain cut from the same mold - but i want something new.... rehashing old villains leads right back into the same ground we've trekked over time and time and time again... you bring back Blofeld - you might as well bring back Tracy and remake OHMSS.... simply absurd..

    I actually quite agree with him. I'd rather Blofeld not return if I really think it through. However, I am sort of okay if Blofeld is back, but only if done in a good, creative way that removes the feeling of instant Austin Powers deja vu. No white cat, not bald, very different. And I do think because of the rights issue, Blofeld will return at some point. They just better do a very good job with that character.

    So ... if Blofeld is back - okay, do it very well indeed or not at all. Because I am happy with what haserot said there. Don't just rehash - give me new, exciting and different villains. And I would never want Tracy and Bond's story remade (in spite my feeling that Laz was totally lackluster). It would be absurd.

    FYI: My opinion is not utter bollocks, GG (and others). For it to be utter bollocks, in this particular discussion, I would have had to have had a flight of fantasy that would be crazy and irrelevant. Anything totally ridiculous has not been mentioned by me, or haserot. And my arguments will nearly always reflect my personal wishes (as will anyone's - unless they are arguing the other side of a debate just for fun or intellectual stimulation). This is a discussion filled, debating forum. I want discussion and contrasting points of views, debates and speculation. Good discussion and give and take arguments are the lifeblood of a forum.

    And I remember you were gone for quite some time (months?) GG; very glad you are back.
Sign In or Register to comment.