› ›

So if Blofeld returns for Bond #25? How should we bring him back effectively?

12346»

Comments

  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    But @noSolaceleft , I’m NOT talking about Mendes at all!! Please read the post a third time, then it will all make sense to you (wow! Well read indeed! I just worry about the other half of what reading means!)
  • noSolaceleftnoSolaceleft
    Posts: 1,162
    Mea culpa. Since all the discussion had been mainly about the last two porn movies I simply assumed it was about Mendes and didn't reread your post. Scrolling obviously is not for everyone.
    Still my arguments apply.
  • mattjoesmattjoes Julie T. and the M.G.'s
    Posts: 7,020
    noSolaceleft wrote: »
    Mea culpa. Since all the discussion had been mainly about the last two porn movies I simply assumed it was about Mendes and didn't reread your post. Scrolling obviously is not for everyone.
    Still my arguments apply.

    Last two?! They're not running out are they?!
  • noSolaceleftnoSolaceleft
    Posts: 1,162
    That damned auto corrector. It does that very often, but usually I remember to correct it myself.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    1/3
  • Gustav_GravesGustav_Graves
    Posts: 11,119
    GamesBond007 wrote: »
    After listening to a number of JB Radio podcasts I have come to the conclusion that Blofeld should escape prison (maybe he doesn't even make it to prison) within the pretitle sequence while Bond and Madeliene sail off together.

    After the PT we find Bond becoming suspicious of his surroundings since hearing of Blofeld's escape. Like the ending of the novel Solo, Bond is noticeably weary and decides to leave Swann in the middle of the night and never look back.

    Then we begin to mine YOLT for material and Bond almost defeats Blofeld but is captured and brainwashed and the film ends. The next actor would be given a great way to start his tenure by trying to kill M in the pretitle sequence of Bond 26.

    Interesting idea I think. But I'd also like to see this continuity crap go out the window and get stand alone missions. Either way they have a lot of options.

    That's exactly what I did in my story treatment. Albeit with some "Thunderball"-flair and "Living Daylights" tension:

    mxHfiFE.jpg
    0BASK8c.jpg
    sAP3mYN.jpg
  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 15,106
    patb wrote: »
    One of the key points of the licence to kill (as with Dredd and, to some extent, Dirty Harry ) was the ability for our hero (and the audience) to administer instant justice.

    Most people respect the rule of law, innocent til proved guilty, rules of evidence etc, but it's just human nature to want instant, clean justice with no loose ends (even better to be sanctioned by the country you are paid to protect). Surely, thats why the licence system exists?

    To leave Blofeld to go down the criminal justice procedure (I want a phone call, fill in this form to apply for legal aid etc etc) is as un-Bond like as anything IMHO

    Yet in the novel OHMSS the plan was to capture Blofeld.
  • GettlerGettler USA
    Posts: 326
    Ludovico wrote: »
    patb wrote: »
    One of the key points of the licence to kill (as with Dredd and, to some extent, Dirty Harry ) was the ability for our hero (and the audience) to administer instant justice.

    Most people respect the rule of law, innocent til proved guilty, rules of evidence etc, but it's just human nature to want instant, clean justice with no loose ends (even better to be sanctioned by the country you are paid to protect). Surely, thats why the licence system exists?

    To leave Blofeld to go down the criminal justice procedure (I want a phone call, fill in this form to apply for legal aid etc etc) is as un-Bond like as anything IMHO

    Yet in the novel OHMSS the plan was to capture Blofeld.

    Of course it is.
    But, he wasn't captured. He is, however, captured in the Craig films. Maybe thay's just where his story ends. I don't know.
  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 15,106
    Gettler wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    patb wrote: »
    One of the key points of the licence to kill (as with Dredd and, to some extent, Dirty Harry ) was the ability for our hero (and the audience) to administer instant justice.

    Most people respect the rule of law, innocent til proved guilty, rules of evidence etc, but it's just human nature to want instant, clean justice with no loose ends (even better to be sanctioned by the country you are paid to protect). Surely, thats why the licence system exists?

    To leave Blofeld to go down the criminal justice procedure (I want a phone call, fill in this form to apply for legal aid etc etc) is as un-Bond like as anything IMHO

    Yet in the novel OHMSS the plan was to capture Blofeld.

    Of course it is.
    But, he wasn't captured. He is, however, captured in the Craig films. Maybe thay's just where his story ends. I don't know.

    He wasn't captured but my point is if capturing him was the plan Bond had to follow through, then capturing Blofeld is not un-Bondian. They have plenty of reasons to keep him alive. Beside, letting him alive was a form of humiliation.
  • GettlerGettler USA
    Posts: 326
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Gettler wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    patb wrote: »
    One of the key points of the licence to kill (as with Dredd and, to some extent, Dirty Harry ) was the ability for our hero (and the audience) to administer instant justice.

    Most people respect the rule of law, innocent til proved guilty, rules of evidence etc, but it's just human nature to want instant, clean justice with no loose ends (even better to be sanctioned by the country you are paid to protect). Surely, thats why the licence system exists?

    To leave Blofeld to go down the criminal justice procedure (I want a phone call, fill in this form to apply for legal aid etc etc) is as un-Bond like as anything IMHO

    Yet in the novel OHMSS the plan was to capture Blofeld.

    Of course it is.
    But, he wasn't captured. He is, however, captured in the Craig films. Maybe thay's just where his story ends. I don't know.

    He wasn't captured but my point is if capturing him was the plan Bond had to follow through, then capturing Blofeld is not un-Bondian. They have plenty of reasons to keep him alive. Beside, letting him alive was a form of humiliation.

    Thar makes sense. However, my gripe with Bond letting him live was that it seemed out of character for Blofeld to be suicidal in asking 007 to 'Finish it'.
  • mattjoesmattjoes Julie T. and the M.G.'s
    Posts: 7,020
    Gettler wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Gettler wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    patb wrote: »
    One of the key points of the licence to kill (as with Dredd and, to some extent, Dirty Harry ) was the ability for our hero (and the audience) to administer instant justice.

    Most people respect the rule of law, innocent til proved guilty, rules of evidence etc, but it's just human nature to want instant, clean justice with no loose ends (even better to be sanctioned by the country you are paid to protect). Surely, thats why the licence system exists?

    To leave Blofeld to go down the criminal justice procedure (I want a phone call, fill in this form to apply for legal aid etc etc) is as un-Bond like as anything IMHO

    Yet in the novel OHMSS the plan was to capture Blofeld.

    Of course it is.
    But, he wasn't captured. He is, however, captured in the Craig films. Maybe thay's just where his story ends. I don't know.

    He wasn't captured but my point is if capturing him was the plan Bond had to follow through, then capturing Blofeld is not un-Bondian. They have plenty of reasons to keep him alive. Beside, letting him alive was a form of humiliation.

    Thar makes sense. However, my gripe with Bond letting him live was that it seemed out of character for Blofeld to be suicidal in asking 007 to 'Finish it'.

    I agree. They did that to make Bond's choice between killing him and not killing him more dramatic, but Blofeld wouldn't encourage him to do it, at least not the Blofeld presented in the film. He thinks too highly of himself for that.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,277
    I'd like them to have Blofeld go completely crazy independent of Spectre, as in the YOLT novel. Maybe Spectre throws *him* out. Shame they did away with White, then...
  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 15,106
    Gettler wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Gettler wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    patb wrote: »
    One of the key points of the licence to kill (as with Dredd and, to some extent, Dirty Harry ) was the ability for our hero (and the audience) to administer instant justice.

    Most people respect the rule of law, innocent til proved guilty, rules of evidence etc, but it's just human nature to want instant, clean justice with no loose ends (even better to be sanctioned by the country you are paid to protect). Surely, thats why the licence system exists?

    To leave Blofeld to go down the criminal justice procedure (I want a phone call, fill in this form to apply for legal aid etc etc) is as un-Bond like as anything IMHO

    Yet in the novel OHMSS the plan was to capture Blofeld.

    Of course it is.
    But, he wasn't captured. He is, however, captured in the Craig films. Maybe thay's just where his story ends. I don't know.

    He wasn't captured but my point is if capturing him was the plan Bond had to follow through, then capturing Blofeld is not un-Bondian. They have plenty of reasons to keep him alive. Beside, letting him alive was a form of humiliation.

    Thar makes sense. However, my gripe with Bond letting him live was that it seemed out of character for Blofeld to be suicidal in asking 007 to 'Finish it'.

    Except that Blofeld is not suicidal. He expects to be killed so he reacts by being defiant. Le Chiffre would have begged for his life to be spared, other villains too but Blofeld has more pride, not to mention arrogance.
  • M16_CartM16_Cart Craig fanboy?
    Posts: 541
    bring him back but not in bond 25.

    blofeld needs a reason to exist, not just because the previous movie had a blofeld
  • LeChiffreLeChiffre
    Posts: 1,548
    I'm sure Danny Boyle will work out a way. Robert Carlisle as main villain? Probably better suited for the Craig era than the Brosnan one.
  • SeanCraigSeanCraig Germany
    Posts: 732
    IF Blofeld will be back, just „show“ him in style of FRWL and TB.
  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 15,106
    M16_Cart wrote: »
    bring him back but not in bond 25.

    blofeld needs a reason to exist, not just because the previous movie had a blofeld

    I think it's a given that he'll be back at some point. Instead of Chandler's Law, let's call this Blofeld's Law: "when in doubt, have Blofeld show up in some capacity".
  • FoxRoxFoxRox
    Posts: 12,462
    I don't think he's going to return in Bond 25 with Boyle and Hodge coming on board. In the P&W script, way more likely. IF Blofeld is to return for 25, they have to give him a seriously compelling plot and find something fresh to do with his character. Just seeing him broken out and taking over SPECTRE again is uninspired. If they go that route, they have to add a lot of creativity around that.

    I think Bond 25 should just ignore Madeleine, Blofeld, and SPECTRE, and it very well might. My guess is the film will be set a fair amount of time after SP takes place - maybe with Bond already back in the service without the need to show the time in between? They have a lot of options, but good execution is the key.
  • SharkBaitSharkBait
    Posts: 2,107
    Just don't bring him back.

    Next time, after a soft reboot, that comes with every new actor taking the role of Bond, they can just ignore Brofeld and reintroduce him without any of the brotherly ties to Bond. Just leave that in the Craig era.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    edited March 2018 Posts: 9,117
    SharkBait wrote: »
    Just don't bring him back.

    Next time, after a soft reboot, that comes with every new actor taking the role of Bond, they can just ignore Brofeld and reintroduce him without any of the brotherly ties to Bond. Just leave that in the Craig era.
    You have to hand it to them with SP - not only did they manage to send ripples into the past to bugger up the previous 3 Craig films but they've also made it pretty impossible to use Blofeld for about a decade going forwards as well.
  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 15,106
    TheWizardOfIce wrote: »
    SharkBait wrote: »
    Just don't bring him back.

    Next time, after a soft reboot, that comes with every new actor taking the role of Bond, they can just ignore Brofeld and reintroduce him without any of the brotherly ties to Bond. Just leave that in the Craig era.
    You have to hand it to them with SP - not only did they manage to send ripples into the past to bugger up the previous 3 Craig films but they've also made it pretty impossible to use Blofeld for about a decade going forwards as well.

    Not necessarily. When they made OHMSS they ignored Bond and Blofeld meeting in the previous movie and there was a two years gap between them. New Bond actor, new Blofeld actor, it's all it takes.
  • SharkBaitSharkBait
    Posts: 2,107
    With the rate they're doing these movies, and if Brofeld isn't in the next one, it has been a decade since the character has been used.

    If they use Blofeld in the next actor's movies.
  • RC7RC7
    edited March 2018 Posts: 10,512
    They can do what they want with him. Bond isn’t caught in a Marvel-esque continuity. They had 50+ years of shooting continuity to shit, before attempting it twice, recently. Despite SP, the general audience still sees the Bonds as ‘singular’, rather than a collective piece. And if they don’t, they’ll just be told to deal with it.
  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 15,106
    SharkBait wrote: »
    With the rate they're doing these movies, and if Brofeld isn't in the next one, it has been a decade since the character has been used.

    If they use Blofeld in the next actor's movies.

    There's that as well.
Sign In or Register to comment.