SPECTRE: So who's going to play Ernst?

1272830323354

Comments

  • edited November 2014 Posts: 4,622
    RC7 wrote: »
    She also said...

    Barbara Broccoli: I mean, we’ve talked about Blofeld over the years. The thing is Blofeld was fantastic for the time but I think it’s about creating characters that are, villains that are more appropriate for the contemporary world. It’s more exciting for us to create somebody new.

    So, while we can all gesticulate and wank on about it, none of us really know and in all honesty it's been discussed to death. Let's see what happens.
    I guess what's most relevant then might be what she has said most recently, whatever that might be.

    I still stand by my prediction. My spider sense says that , Waltz will be cast as Blofeld.
    I am staying on record with that one.
    Also I think there is only one more major actor to be named. Most Bond films feature 4 core characters beyond the recurring Mi6 characters.
    So far we have Waltz, Seydoux and Buatista. One more to go, most likely another Bond girl. That's the standard recipe. Two Bond girls, two villains as featured characters.
    And the cast doesn't need another real recognizable name.
    The cast already has enough punch with Craig, Waltz and Seydoux, not to mention Fiennes.

  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Ludovico wrote: »
    I am all for exploring new territories and inventing new threats, but as I said before, on this thread and others, there are worse things than to go back to Fleming. And there is inventing in reinventing. Fleming himself did not write in a vacuum. He was following a literary tradition.

    You're right, there are worse things than going back to Fleming. The franchise is proof enough of this. I guess I'm just less inclined for them to pilfer Fleming specifics, because I feel like they're getting more a handle on how to balance the cinematic with the literary, something they'd moved away from significantly. If I were to go to Hitchcock for inspiration with a screenplay, I wouldn't pilfer a scenario wholesale, but I might be inspired by its structure and atmosphere. Going back to Fleming doesn't necessarily mean using actual content to me.

  • Posts: 15,106
    It does not necessarily means content, of course, but then again if the source material is good and unused (and I would say that a lot of Blofeld remains unused) and relevant, then why not use it? I mean Hugo Drax was the inspiration of at least three Bond movie villains, not counting Drax himself. There is still Fleming literary material to use.

    I will not be as daring as Timmer in my predictions, but I would say that there is a fair chance that Blofeld will reappear in the future, or at least a crypto-Blofeld. And it may be confirmation bias, but Waltz does share some characteristics with Blofeld (a malleable face, about the same age, he is also non British). From what we know of the character he will play, it does sound like it could be Blofeld. And it is true that they have been reintroducing in SF old characters. And out of three, two of them were revealed at the end. Alongside with M's old office. So if Waltz end up being revealed as Blofeld, I will not be surprised.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    edited November 2014 Posts: 16,351
    Ludovico wrote: »
    And it is true that they have been reintroducing in SF old characters. And out of three, two of them were revealed at the end. Alongside with M's old office. So if Waltz end up being revealed as Blofeld, I will not be surprised.

    Aside from Moneypenny. Q and Mallory don't really count as "old" characters as they are actually new characters with the titles of old characters. Ben's Q isn't a reboot of Desmond's Q. He's a new character who share's the title of Q. Same goes for Mallory. He's not the same character Bernard Lee played. He's a new character who share's the title of M.
  • Posts: 4,622
    very good distinction @murdock. That's exactly what Eon did, although it does seem that Mallory M, and familiar old office, is an attempt at throwback to the original
    Lee as Miles Messervy M
  • HASEROTHASEROT has returned like the tedious inevitability of an unloved season---
    Posts: 4,399
    timmer wrote: »
    very good distinction @murdock. That's exactly what Eon did, although it does seem that Mallory M, and familiar old office, is an attempt at throwback to the original
    Lee as Miles Messervy M

    i think that has more to do with theme of the story of Skyfall, than it was reinventing Miles Messervy... it was a call back to something old, something safe, something familiar - and that maybe (as Moneypenny put it) "The old ways still work best."

    lets not also forget, that Robert Brown's M had the same exact look to his office.
  • Posts: 4,622
    Right, a throwback to familiar type of M, and familiar old office occupied by both Lee and Brown
  • HASEROTHASEROT has returned like the tedious inevitability of an unloved season---
    edited November 2014 Posts: 4,399
    exactly.........

    but seeing as how EON wants to use the most out these actors in these roles nowadays, i highly doubt we'll see a return to the old familiar format of M and Moneypenny only appearing at the beginning and end of the films.... which i don't care if they have larger roles - i just don't want stories to have to revolve around them... if they have M checking in with Bond like in CR or QOS (sans the trust crap).. i am cool with it..... in terms of Moneypenny, i know they want to get more mileage out of her character - but at the end of SF, they already set her up for her desk job by her admitting "field work isn't for everyone." - by having her return to active field work to assist Bond completely contradicts the end of that film.... if they want to have her pop up, and give Bond info while he's out in the field, or maybe if they show her being more active from the confines of the MI6 HQ - fine i guess... i would just hope they don't fall into the trap of "Well, we have this actress, and we don't want to waste her in only 1 minute of the film."...... if that was the case, then they should've cast a complete unknown for that job.
  • it´s like five shiny minutes..hongkong style for old time´s sake..
  • I just think it's a fun idea to bring back Blofeld and S.P.E.C.T.R.E. It gives the Bond producers and the director another means of re-inventing and re-booting. And this creates new creativity.

    I've posted a lot of my arguments in this topic. And I love discussing with everyone in here. Obviously there are people who support the idea of bringing back Blofeld and S.P.E.C.T.R.E, but perhaps even more Bond fans don't like that idea.

    I will now try to post less in this topic. Or perhaps a good idea to close it? I've seen the topics I create, create a lot of division. And we know every one's opinions about this subject by now :-).
  • HASEROTHASEROT has returned like the tedious inevitability of an unloved season---
    Posts: 4,399
    I just think it's a fun idea to bring back Blofeld and S.P.E.C.T.R.E. It gives the Bond producers and the director another means of re-inventing and re-booting. And this creates new creativity.

    I've posted a lot of my arguments in this topic. And I love discussing with everyone in here. Obviously there are people who support the idea of bringing back Blofeld and S.P.E.C.T.R.E, but perhaps even more Bond fans don't like that idea.

    I will now try to post less in this topic. Or perhaps a good idea to close it? I've seen the topics I create, create a lot of division. And we know every one's opinions about this subject by now :-).

    i wouldn't close... but maybe a slight renaming?

    so instead of:

    BOND 24: So who's going to play Ernst in future Bond installments?

    maybe switching it to...

    Who could play Blofeld in future Bond installments?

    by removing the Bond 24 from the title of the thread, you immediately disassociate from the next film by leaving it more open and vague to other future Bond films... this makes the topic seem less like "It's happening" to more of a "if it does happen" .... i just think there would be less friction if the topic and subject were broached that way, instead of immediately putting him in the next film like it's confirmed to be happening..

    i dont know, just a suggestion....
  • Posts: 15,106
    HASEROT wrote: »
    timmer wrote: »
    very good distinction @murdock. That's exactly what Eon did, although it does seem that Mallory M, and familiar old office, is an attempt at throwback to the original
    Lee as Miles Messervy M

    i think that has more to do with theme of the story of Skyfall, than it was reinventing Miles Messervy... it was a call back to something old, something safe, something familiar - and that maybe (as Moneypenny put it) "The old ways still work best."

    lets not also forget, that Robert Brown's M had the same exact look to his office.

    The new M is not Messervy in name, but there's all these throwbacks at the old days, as Timmer said. And Q is a very different character, but they still wanted a new Q. So why not a new nemesis? Which could be revamped old one. It's not like nostalgia was no part of SF.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Ludovico wrote: »
    HASEROT wrote: »
    timmer wrote: »
    very good distinction @murdock. That's exactly what Eon did, although it does seem that Mallory M, and familiar old office, is an attempt at throwback to the original
    Lee as Miles Messervy M

    i think that has more to do with theme of the story of Skyfall, than it was reinventing Miles Messervy... it was a call back to something old, something safe, something familiar - and that maybe (as Moneypenny put it) "The old ways still work best."

    lets not also forget, that Robert Brown's M had the same exact look to his office.

    The new M is not Messervy in name, but there's all these throwbacks at the old days, as Timmer said. And Q is a very different character, but they still wanted a new Q. So why not a new nemesis? Which could be revamped old one. It's not like nostalgia was no part of SF.

    But it was probably the most trite part of it. This nostalgia thing has to be eschewed in favour of genuine risk taking, much like CR did.

    Regards bringing back Q and MP, I don't really feel like they're comparable. They were staples of the franchise until CR. You expected them as much as you'd expect a GB or a title sequence. Not so with Blofeld. After all, Tanner has been in as many films as Blofeld.

  • HASEROTHASEROT has returned like the tedious inevitability of an unloved season---
    edited November 2014 Posts: 4,399
    Ludovico wrote: »
    HASEROT wrote: »
    timmer wrote: »
    very good distinction @murdock. That's exactly what Eon did, although it does seem that Mallory M, and familiar old office, is an attempt at throwback to the original
    Lee as Miles Messervy M

    i think that has more to do with theme of the story of Skyfall, than it was reinventing Miles Messervy... it was a call back to something old, something safe, something familiar - and that maybe (as Moneypenny put it) "The old ways still work best."

    lets not also forget, that Robert Brown's M had the same exact look to his office.

    The new M is not Messervy in name, but there's all these throwbacks at the old days, as Timmer said. And Q is a very different character, but they still wanted a new Q. So why not a new nemesis? Which could be revamped old one. It's not like nostalgia was no part of SF.

    giphy_zpsiqzpntbj.gif

    ugh.......... i'm not going to sucked into another one sided argument over this issue - i am not going to get myself worked up over something i have no control over... because if they intend to use him - terrific - it's not going to make me not want to see the new film, and it's no skin off my hide, i just hope it's a good film at the end of the day... but i've more than explained my reasoning as to why i would rather them just let Blofeld stay in the past....... this subject is a dead horse.. i'm not going to convince you that he isn't necessary.. and no matter how hard you try, your never going to convince me that he is... so agree to disagree or whatever.... but i am washing my hands of this subject..
  • Posts: 15,106
    RC7 wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    HASEROT wrote: »
    timmer wrote: »
    very good distinction @murdock. That's exactly what Eon did, although it does seem that Mallory M, and familiar old office, is an attempt at throwback to the original
    Lee as Miles Messervy M

    i think that has more to do with theme of the story of Skyfall, than it was reinventing Miles Messervy... it was a call back to something old, something safe, something familiar - and that maybe (as Moneypenny put it) "The old ways still work best."

    lets not also forget, that Robert Brown's M had the same exact look to his office.

    The new M is not Messervy in name, but there's all these throwbacks at the old days, as Timmer said. And Q is a very different character, but they still wanted a new Q. So why not a new nemesis? Which could be revamped old one. It's not like nostalgia was no part of SF.

    But it was probably the most trite part of it. This nostalgia thing has to be eschewed in favour of genuine risk taking, much like CR did.

    Regards bringing back Q and MP, I don't really feel like they're comparable. They were staples of the franchise until CR. You expected them as much as you'd expect a GB or a title sequence. Not so with Blofeld. After all, Tanner has been in as many films as Blofeld.

    Tanner never had the importance of Blofeld though. And they seem to want to show more of him in the franchise. Which I'm glad, he was a neglected character in the movies. As for Blofeld, he was in three novels only. But it is already more than Moriarty ever was in Holmes canon.
  • Posts: 15,106
    HASEROT wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    HASEROT wrote: »
    timmer wrote: »
    very good distinction @murdock. That's exactly what Eon did, although it does seem that Mallory M, and familiar old office, is an attempt at throwback to the original
    Lee as Miles Messervy M

    i think that has more to do with theme of the story of Skyfall, than it was reinventing Miles Messervy... it was a call back to something old, something safe, something familiar - and that maybe (as Moneypenny put it) "The old ways still work best."

    lets not also forget, that Robert Brown's M had the same exact look to his office.

    The new M is not Messervy in name, but there's all these throwbacks at the old days, as Timmer said. And Q is a very different character, but they still wanted a new Q. So why not a new nemesis? Which could be revamped old one. It's not like nostalgia was no part of SF.

    giphy_zpsiqzpntbj.gif

    ugh.......... i'm not going to sucked into another one sided argument over this issue - i am not going to get myself worked up over something i have no control over... because if they intend to use him - terrific - it's not going to make me not want to see the new film, and it's no skin off my hide, i just hope it's a good film at the end of the day... but i've more than explained my reasoning as to why i would rather them just let Blofeld stay in the past....... this subject is a dead horse.. i'm not going to convince you that he isn't necessary.. and no matter how hard you try, your never going to convince me that he is... so agree to disagree or whatever.... but i am washing my hands of this subject..

    I'm not saying Blofeld is,essential to Bond. Heck, I'd settle for a crypto Blofeld, or even another nemesis entirely. But I do think Blofeld as written in the source material has his place and relevance in Bond.
  • RC7RC7
    edited November 2014 Posts: 10,512
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Tanner never had the importance of Blofeld though.

    That's not my point. Blofeld was an important adversary for a period, but you don't expect him to be in a film, where you would with MP and Q. I don't think resurrecting characters that have been a ubiquitous component of the franchise for fifty years is comparable to resurrecting one who appeared over the course of a decade, forty years ago.
  • Posts: 15,106
    It is not exactly the same thing, but as a whole, for the same reason they brought the Aston Martin back, and the office, and Tanner, and Moneypenny they could bring Blofeld back.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Ludovico wrote: »
    It is not exactly the same thing, but as a whole, for the same reason they brought the Aston Martin back, and the office

    This is just lazy, though. I'm not bothered about the comforting, safety net of nostalgia and I'm absolutely certain it will undo the franchise again if they persist with it.
  • Posts: 15,106
    I don't know, I always preferred the old office. More elegant, without the ridiculously high tech devices. Yes it was nostalgic, but I can live with it. I find nostalgia in healthy doses... Healthy for the franchise. And to be expected.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Ludovico wrote: »
    I don't know, I always preferred the old office. More elegant, without the ridiculously high tech devices. Yes it was nostalgic, but I can live with it. I find nostalgia in healthy doses... Healthy for the franchise. And to be expected.

    I liked the old office also, but it's a bit like going back to an ex. I understand people feel comforted by what they know, but I think the formula of Bond gives a certain sense of that without having to roll out specific references to the past. They can invent within the framework of the film. I'd much rather have the Gunbarrel back at the start, it's more important than resurrecting any character, vehicle, location etc.
  • Posts: 15,106
    Funny, I find characters just as important, if not more so. In any case, they are not mutually exclusive. They could have carried on using an high tech office which changes look every movie. Heck, it may be back in Bond 24! The old office is not essential, but it does bring a certain atmosphere.
  • Let's rest a bit.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Funny, I find characters just as important, if not more so.

    I'm not suggesting the GB is more important than 'characters', that would be borderline insane. I was suggesting that if we're looking to reintroduce elements of the franchise, restoring it to its rightful place at the start of the movies would top my list above resurrecting specific characters, vehicles etc. Having Blofeld in the movie might be fantastic, but might wholly miss the mark, having the GB just restores a necessary order and can only add to the overall joy of sitting down to watch a Bond movie. After that I'd happily take things I haven't seen before, over things I have, or versions of them.


  • Posts: 15,106
    I agree with you that they could mess it up bringing Blofeld back. I am only half happy the way they dealt with Moneypenny. I loved Naomi Harris as Eve, I liked her as Moneypenny far more than any of Lois Maxwell's successors, but I didn't like much the Eve is Moneypenny twist, if that makes sense. I was not completely convinced. And the risks are far, far higher with Blofeld. When I say Blofeld can be brought back, I imply that it is done properly. And even among those in favor of bringing Blofeld back, there are disagreements on what properly means in this context. My idea is to make him as close as possible to the novels and as far as possible from the 60s icon, especially but not exclusively from YOLT. But others think a nod to that would be fine, whether it is a cat or a scar or a bald head. Or even all of this. Or they want Blofeld as a portemanteau name for Bond's nemesis and give him whatever characteristics they think would be different: a young Blofeld, a female Blofeld, a young and attractive female Blofeld, etc. Another approach I am dead against.
  • edited November 2014 Posts: 11,119
    RC7 wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Funny, I find characters just as important, if not more so.

    I'm not suggesting the GB is more important than 'characters', that would be borderline insane. I was suggesting that if we're looking to reintroduce elements of the franchise, restoring it to its rightful place at the start of the movies would top my list above resurrecting specific characters, vehicles etc. Having Blofeld in the movie might be fantastic, but might wholly miss the mark, having the GB just restores a necessary order and can only add to the overall joy of sitting down to watch a Bond movie. After that I'd happily take things I haven't seen before, over things I have, or versions of them.

    So, if we stay on topic a bit......what needs to be done, according to an experienced movie professional like you, to make Blofeld and S.P.E.C.T.R.E. in future Bond films "work" perfectly?

    I mean, let's say if the producers already made up their minds and Blofeld/S.P.E.C.T.R.E. are indeed in a future Bond film, what would you do, writing-wise, to hit the mark....in such a way that this new Blofeld is a fantastic achievement...
  • Posts: 15,106
    Well, the true topic is who is going to play Blofeld? Presuming he shows up again.
  • Christoph Waltz, Michael Shannon or Ray Winstone. Why Ray Winston as it would be a shock to Bond and play against stereotype, that all Megalomaniacs are posh. Also Ray is tough and could technically kick the crap out of Bond.
  • Posts: 15,106
    scouse007 wrote: »
    Christoph Waltz, Michael Shannon or Ray Winstone. Why Ray Winston as it would be a shock to Bond and play against stereotype, that all Megalomaniacs are posh. Also Ray is tough and could technically kick the crap out of Bond.

    Shannon is far too young now. Winstone has the perfect body frame and almost perfect face for a TB Blofeld. He would need minimal makeup. My only reservation: he may be too British.
  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 4,043
    Ray Winstone is this a joke? The man has become a caricature of himself!
Sign In or Register to comment.