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
Nobody else could or should play him,so lets leave him in the Roger Moore era,where he belongs, and move on.
It was not in full camera focus during the film so without knowing about it, is quite tricky to pick up on.
They really dropped the ball on Khan though. They took an iconic Trek character and remade him as a generic and dull baddie. The character of Khan in Into Darkness could have been any villain.
If Blofeld reappears, I'd imagine that they would do something far more interesting with him. If someone like Christopher Waltz plays him, I'd imagine it would be great.
As for Jaws--yeah, I think that could work. Bond 24 needs a great henchman, something that the Craig films have lacked. As I said before, make him a lot more sinister than the Jaws of the Moore-era.
If someone besides Connery can play Bond, another actor could be cast as Jaws.
No i dont agree with that,and then people will be accusing the series of recycling things from the other films ala Star Trek.
The Bond films need to remain fresh and lead the field not bring back a character that doesnt need to be brought back.
The only exception would be Blofeld as he has also been played by various actors,but even that would be a gamble.
By the way your choice of Christophe Waltz as Blofeld is a great choice,i would love to see him as a Bond villain,such a talented actor.
"It's too arty"
"It's pretentious"
"It's boring"
"The plot was too simple"
"The plot was too complex"
"Too much action"
"Not enough action"
etc.
Well those people need to shut up because this "General Public" crap is ruining Movies for the modern age.
I think that was the issue with Khan. He was a generic psychopath like we had seen so many times, but nothing like THE psychopath Khan had been before. No real sense of grandeur, megalomania, arrogance and barely any animosity towards Kirk. Cumberbatch played well a generic villain, but he was utterly unconvincing as the genetically enhanced uberman and would-be world conqueror and cult leader. The last Star Trek movie shows us how not to reuse a classic villain. But there are other movies, TDK for example, that show us classic villains can be reintroduced.
So I could see Blofeld reintroduced easily, if made closer to the novels. The general public would make not even the slightest connection with the spoofed version. But for Jaws... Well, I don't see it. Because there is only a glimpse of the Jaws character in Fleming, and because unlike Blofeld, the only true model we have is the cartoonish henchman from the Moore era.
Jaws was a cartoonish villian and a symbol of the excesses of the Moore era. Though he was better utilized in TSWLM it was still full of campiness. He bites chains and breaks them with his teeth, he kills by bitting people on the neck (sans blood) he kills a shark with is teeth, buildings fall on him, he is thrown from a moving train, he crashes a car, he does all this and gets up and walks away. That crap would have killed most men even someone as big as Hulk Hogan in his prime! And I won't go into the silliness of the character in Moonraker...
Oddjob was super strong but he was more believable, same goes for Necros, and Hans in YOLT.
The Bond movies do not need to return to such silliness these days. Audiences have grown up since the late 1970's.