It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
Moneypenny is black, Q is a young guy... Stop living in the past Bald men with Cats, those days are gone now if Skyfall taught us anything it is casting is open to all creeds, looks and ages.
Your argument about Waltz not committing is one from ignorance. You can't think he will. I think he might. But then if he isn't Blofeld can be recast.
Anyway, Denbigh is the Old-English form of 'small fortress' or 'small fortified field'. It's not far off from Bleuchamp or Bleuville.
You point across your arguments with such bitterness Ludovico on every post. If nobody agrees then "Its going to be crap and nobody will like it" I don't think you speak for the majority of Bond fans. "Waltz not committing is one from ignorance" what part is "ignorance" that through Waltz's movie choices he has never done sequels. That he like fresh new projects and does not like repeating something he has already done. Common sense. Waltz played a villain in the Green Hornet, Inglourious Basterds
and The Three Musketeers. Playing a very different villain is each film, it is how he makes a living, having himself typecast as Blofeld his appeal to casting directors goes way down. Plus he has already commited himself to the big blockbuster remake of Tarzan in 2016 and will unlikely be able to commit to another film.
Michael G Wilson said of the trailer "All is not what is seems" now they put Waltz in a nehru collar and given every impressions he is going to be Blofeld.
If I am wrong I will be the first person on here to apologise to you for not believing it is Waltz. But I think it is very Niave almost gullable of you to make assumptions based on the trailer, EON know better than to give the full game away on a trailer "All is not what is seems" .
I don't know what Logan or Wilson have in mind and for all I know everything we have seen about Oberhauser can be an avalanche of red herrings. But if Denbigh is Blofeld then the burden of proof resides in the people making the claim. And even IF he turns out as Blofeld, I think it is a bad idea that may backfire the way it did for Iron Man 3. For now the evidences lead to Waltz.
Oh and I love Monica Bellucci but making her a female Blofeld for the heck of it would also be a mistake.
Notwithstanding how improbable it would be, but these are the actors I can see who'd 'Wow!' audience as Blofeld instead of Waltz: Daniel Day Lewis, Bruno Ganz, Al Pacino, Michael Caine, Anthony Hopkins, Robert Downey Jr, Samuel L Jackson.*
* I realise some of these choice are totally unrealistic and ill-suited for Bond, but if EON are going to succeed in revealing another actor as Blofeld instead of Waltz, these are the world-wide megastars that would create an immense media buzz like nothing seen before. Even in Scott's wildest dreams he can't achieve the media frenzy that would happen if RDJ is revealed to be the mastermind behind it all.
But Craig's Bond trajectory is deeply personal and specifically tailored to his portrayal. It seems like SP is going to coalesce the various strands of the era and form a block of four films that are uniquely intertwined like no others in the canon. This doesn't look like, 'Bond on a mission' as others proclaim. I think the producers have hoodwinked people with the inclusion of Q's lab, M's office, villain's lair etc. I don't get the rationale of hiring a Blofeld for multiple films when it's highly unlikely DC will do more than two beyond SP. I struggle to see how you recast Bond within this timeline now it has become so much about Bond the man and not the mission.
Bleu means blue, not small.
Let's see.
I do. I don't want a Blofeld who only has his name and nothing of the character.
Of course. But I still fail to see the gain of such casting decision.
I agree. If you're going to have a head of SPECTRE that is completely rewritten and revisualised, you might as well have him as head of Quantum and make the continuity pretty much seamless.
And, for the record, I have always been against bringing back the scar, the bald head and the cat for Blofeld. I don't think they are necessary at all.
I actually just saw this message addressed to me. Moneypenny is now a black Moneypenny, if anything she is a Black Lois Maxwell (especially at the end of SF). Q as we knew him in the movies was defined by Llewellyn, not Ian Fleming, who invented a Boothroyd much different. Blofeld is a character that was defined by Fleming before being mutated into what he became in the movies. I for one, thinks original characters and the source material matter. Blofeld is not just a name, he is a character with a certain history, personality, demeanor, etc. This is what I want them to channel and adapt in the movie. I may be wrong, they might not go for it, but I consider that going back to the source material (who did not have a scar, a bald head and a cat, thank you very much, see my comment above) is the way to go. Blofeld is NOT dr Evil, even less Minime.
There are several possibilities:
Waltz is Blofeld
Scott is Blofeld
Fiennes is Blofeld
Blofeld is not in Spectre at all.
How Oberhauser could be Blofeld is a mystery to me, but maybe the writer's did think of a solution.
It seems that some people even think that option possible from what I've read on various Bond forums.
The problem I have with the current films is all bets are off and I find that unsettling.
After their casting decisions of Q and Moneypenny why not cast Scott as Blofeld?
Or Blofeld is somehow related to Bond etc.
I wish they would not do stuff like killing M.
Now we don't know what to expect, even Moneypenny could die! Unsettling.
And it's not because I am stuck in the past. But for 22 movies (up to QOS) one knew what to expect and that has gone.
There's nothing wrong with shaking up the formula, but I don't see anything other than Waltz being Blofeld happening. If it doesn't, then consider me surprised.
That's what I would love to see: don't expose it and wrap it all up in twenty or thirty minutes of the finale, keep it going. Tease me with it and leave me blown away with something to speculate on for B25. At this point, we might as well throw the possibility of Bond being Blofeld into the ring, too.
Not that I enjoyed the way they used Khan in the last Star Trek movie, but yes. And it is a relatively common trope these days: Batman Begins did the same.
Count me in too. Like I said: what's wrong with a Jekyll&Hyde or Dracula twist? Oh, and I knew the twist of Oedipus Rex before I even read the play. I still loved it to bits. Sometimes the revelation is expected by the audience. It still works. It is how it is brought up and how it works that matters, not the surprise.
There is that too. For the record, I thought Greene was menacing in a creepy way, mainly because Mathieu Amalric is an amazing actor. Scott is... adequate. But I was not blown away by his Moriarty. And I don't think he can believably menacing. Not towards Bond played by Craig. Not towards Mr White. Not towards Oberhauser/Waltz. And yes, you read OHMSS, you see Waltz, except taller.