SPECTRE Production Timeline

1347348350352353870

Comments

  • Posts: 4,619
    RC7 wrote: »
    This pretty much sums up how I feel. My worry is the prospective long-term, gradual degradation of the Bond legacy for what is in essence a cheap thrill

    I don't think it's justified to worry about the gradual degradation of the Bond legacy right now, two years after a high point of the Bond series. On the other hand I do agree that too much nostalgia is not a good thing and they should not rely on past glories.

    For example the scene with the DB5 in the garage in Skyfall was great but the ejector seat joke and the hidden machine guns were too much and went completely against what they did with CR.
  • Ludovico wrote: »
    Matt_Helm wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    No and that's why its a rebooted character.

    No,that is why he is just a new character doing the job of the quartermaster. A reboot would be a new guy named Boothroyd. Same with Fiennes,of course.

    We don't know his name, but that's beside the point: they wanted Q back, a provider of high tech, they have Q back, rebooted, very different from Llewellyn, but he still has the same functions in the story.

    I absolutely agree. Who wouldn't ? Still it's not a reboot. Technically only Bond and Moneypenny are reboots (i.e. A new interpretation of a known character ).
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    RC7 wrote: »
    This pretty much sums up how I feel. My worry is the prospective long-term, gradual degradation of the Bond legacy for what is in essence a cheap thrill

    I don't think it's justified to worry about the gradual degradation of the Bond legacy right now, two years after a high point of the Bond series. On the other hand I do agree that too much nostalgia is not a good thing and they should not rely on past glories.

    For example the scene with the DB5 in the garage in Skyfall was great but the ejector seat joke and the hidden machine guns were too much and went completely against what they did with CR.

    When I say my worry, it's not of genuine concern to the point where I sweat over it. It's just something I'm aware of. Things can get out of hand very quickly once you lose respect for the legacy. It's happened before and it will happen again. And naturally I agree those moments shat on CR, unnecessarily so. Respect, as I say, should be maintained.
  • Posts: 1,548
    I quite the idea of a family connection between Bond and Blofeld. Maybe Kincaid had a son who turned to the dark side. Just kiddiong! I'm looking for an excuse to see more of the great Albert Finney! Would shake things up a bit although I dare say the "traditionalists" will be up in arms just like the whole gunbarrel debate! Whatever happens I am confident we are about to see another classic.I dread to think of the pressure facing whoever follows DC in the role. But that's a whole other topic!
  • Posts: 9,847
    I just hope we get an intriguing back story for the double take pigeon.
  • edited November 2014 Posts: 2,115
    Saw this earlier in the thread:

    (snip)
    Have you guys at times took into account "new" or "young" Bond fans? I mean, let's face it, the Bond fan base is also changing. And if, for this particular post I can be as black-and-white as @Matt_Helm, CR cashes €0.599 Million worldwide and then later SF cashes €1.180 Million worldwide, then there has to be a possibility that new, complete green, young, fans have been reached no?
    (snip)


    Does the poster mean euros or dollars? I think those figures should be in dollars (and in the case of Casino be more like $594 million and Skyfall $1.108 billion).

    http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/franchise/James-Bond

  • edited November 2014 Posts: 11,119
    HASEROT wrote: »
    HASEROT wrote: »
    Murdock wrote: »
    You don't get the idea behind my message. I'm afraid that if Blofeld is "rebooted" then EON might consider remaking the original films. And you fail to fully understand that Ben Wishaw's Q isn't a rebooted vesion Desmond Llewelyn's Q. Making him an entirely new character promoted to Q. Like John Cleese. 8-|

    Why would they want to remake the original films if Blofeld is rebooted? As for the new Q: he is the perfect example of a rebooted character. He is not an entirely new character just like Caig's James Bond isn't an entirely new character either just because he has blond hair now.

    it's an "opening of pandora's box" thing.... they decide to bring back Blofeld, and it works - then what is stopping them from rebooting Mr. Big from LALD, but making him more like the novel?... or rebooting Dr. No?..... it seems ludicrous to think that they would do such a thing now right? - but so did rebooting the whole James Bond timeline back in 2005 when it was announced that that was what they were doing for CR..... i think that is what @Murdock is trying to say... he's not saying that they will do it, but that it's further opening a gateway to even more possible rebooted villains, or even the sacrilegious land of remakes..

    Have you guys at times took into account "new" or "young" Bond fans? I mean, let's face it, the Bond fan base is also changing. And if, for this particular post I can be as black-and-white as @Matt_Helm, CR cashes €0.599 Million worldwide and then later SF cashes €1.180 Million worldwide, then there has to be a possibility that new, complete green, young, fans have been reached no?

    Just think of it. At least for Millions of people CR or SF was their first Bond experience. They were thrilled perhaps. For them, the "re-booted".....
    --> agent 007, James Bond,
    --> Le Chiffre (if you take into account the '67 movie)
    --> Vesper Lyndt
    --> René Mathis
    --> Aston Martin DB5 (hell, this time Bond won it, and didn't came from Q-Branch)
    --> "SPECTRE" (Quantum is that a bit no?)
    --> Q (gay, nerdy, young!)
    --> M 1 (Strictly spoken, because there's a new timeline, Judi Dench was rebooted too)
    --> M 2 (Ralph Fiennes)
    --> Moneypenny......
    ...must have had an incredible impact. Because these re-boots worked. And it's not just a re-boot. It's also a carefully executed process of "re-inventing", in a nuanced and creative way. It gave us, so far, Bond films that IMO are at least two times better than the formularic, unpersonal, soul-less Brosnan films (Not to mention the rather "save" Eighties, if you exclude LTK).

    And although I agree that thoughtless re-boots a la "Khannnn!!" should be out of the question, the wonderful re-inventions we have witnessed so far with CR, QOS and SF.....from those I truly can't get enough!.

    I'm also against completely re-making past Bond films, but that's not the case right now. The blending, re-inventing we have witnessed so far created wonderful stuff. And those new, young, "green" Bond fans perhaps love it...

    first off - i am only 30, i am not that old and detached from the "younger audience demographic"...... when i first saw a Bond movie that i sat through and enjoyed, it was Goldeneye, i was 12 years old... then came the TND... I became a fan, and as many other did, I decided to go back and watch all the old films - which i eventually bought (countless copies of)..... now, lets remove Blofeld out of this discussion, because it's a forgone conclusion that he will be rebooted eventually - so give him a big hug.. there he goes.. wave bye bye.... and...... he's gone........ what i am talking about is other villains that aren't bald and don't stroke a white stroke.. guys like Goldfinger, Dr. No, Mr. Big...... I am saying don't reboot these guys.... but you're advocating - and accepting that it would be okay to reboot them as well?... correct?.

    I think many forummembers in this topic are worrying way way too much about these things. It's merely the name that is being rumoured, while in fact we don't know a thing how the actual role will come across in the actual finished film. I call it "navel staring" on merely the plain, at this moment content-less name. Please let me elaborate.

    EXAMPLE 1 - SILVA: In my personal opinion I thought Silva was -if I'm comparing in a nitpicky, geeky way- a sort of re-invented 'Doctor No'. He had a fairly late, but nonetheless grand entrance as a big Bond villain. He had physical mutulations on his body (an entire jaw prothesis with fake teeth). He used the art of computer hacking to bring violence, destruction in London and to avenge his feelings on "M". The original 'Doctor No' had no hands, used the art of 'toppling' to let missile programs derail (call it the antique version of 'hacking') and had, at least for Honey, a rather fearful entrance in the 2nd half of the film.

    Had Silva really been renamed 'Doctor No', but had the actual written role stayed intact and had Javier Bardem played Doctor No exactly like he would have played Silva, then suddenly we should have been worried more? What a piece of nonsense. Yes, they would have used the name 'Doctor No' then, but he would be re-invented completely to today's standards no. So, this is just a name-thing.

    EXAMPLE 2 - 'LE CHIFFRE': Let's say "Casino Royale '67" was an official EON production. Is it then justified to worry more about the use of the name Le Chiffre in the more faithful movie adaptation "Casino Royale '06"? Off course not! The role would still have been played by Mads Mikkelsen as enigmatic as ever. Moreover, do not forget that 'Le Chiffre' from the 2006 film was quite a bit different from the fat French banker with-walking-stick-turned-gun from the actual novel. Mads' version was suave, slim, rather attractive and had a bleeding eye. He was an Albanian chess protégé. Any problems with that re-invention? Not from my part.

    EXAMPLE 3 - 'STROMBERG': Now that I call an example the-other-way-around. Yes, his name was different from the 1967 version of Blofeld in "You Only Live Twice". But other than that.....well....come on guys. Stromberg was a copy of Blofeld. And if Kevin McGlory hadn't interferred, than Curt Jürgens would have been named Blofeld anyway. For sure. Now this Stromberg....I found that a lame, uninspired copy of Blofeld really. Both Donald's version of the man and Curt used buttons to kill people. How...creative. So did I find the 1977 villain more uninspiring and from a creative perspective boring, simply because of his name? Off course not. It was the role that was written for him that I found uninspiring.

    TO SUMMARIZE: At this particular stage of the Bond 24 production I find it slightly preposterous how certain people "fear" for the fact that after Bond 24 -the whole damn film isn't even in production yet- we suddenly get flooded by a "recycle craze" of villain names that have been used in previous Bond films, like Goldfinger and Mr Big.............when in essence we should worry about HOW the damn villain works in the finished film, regardless of the name tag!

    If the name Goldfinger will be used for Bond 25, then it wouldn't be a shameless character of the man we saw in the 1964 film. We know by now how EON and B&M master the art of "re-inventing". But even more so, THIS is not going to happen. Goldfinger as name will not be re-cycled. We saw Silva in SF no? New name, perhaps slightly reminiscent, in a modern way, of Dr. No. But alltogether completely re-invented.

    The reason why Blofeld is being discussed so heavily, to an extent that at this stage I'm ready to kill myself, is that at times I tend to see the Bond films with a marketing-eye as well. I simply love the brand names "Blofeld" and "S.P.E.C.T.R.E", as they have brand recognition (much more than Goldfinger IMO), history, phonetically sound wunderful, and were created by Fleming. But sjee, if you read my entire dissertation above, then you must know by now that EON and B&M would not bring Blofeld back to make him a copy of a copy of Strom"Blofeld"berg (TSWLM) and Blofeld (YOLT). They know better by now. Also, unless Goldfinger, Blofeld and S.P.E.C.T.R.E. can be used as an umbrella to completely different villains. Fleming's essence of creating S.P.E.C.T.R.E and Blofeld was because of this.

    And guess what, we already saw a revived "S.P.E.C.T.R.E." in "Quantum Of Solace". But it was named QUANTUM as we all know. Had B&M and EON obtained the rights from McGlory's estate 10 years earlier, then perhaps we would have seen the re-booted S.P.E.C.T.R.E., by the exact name, in the 2008 film.

    SHORT FINAL CONCLUSION: Stop it guys. Don't post too black-and-white by saying "Keep Blofeld dead!". Trust EON, B&M, Sam Mendes and the screenplaywriters a bit more. The orthodox fears and elaborately formulated problems, from for example @RC7, are at this stage slightly ridiculous. Especially when you take into account the above examples.

    And, after 52 eventful, creative, inspiring years, it's an illusion to think that the power of a 'name' has the possibility of destroying the entire portrayal of a villain. If you can see parts of past Bond villains in newly named characters (Silva), then you know what I mean. Or if you can't compare Blofeld in Bond 24 with previous Blofelds because he has been re-invented completely and is entirely different from what initial fears told you, then you know what I mean.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,351
    HASEROT wrote: »
    first off - i am only 30, i am not that old and detached from the "younger audience demographic"...... when i first saw a Bond movie that i sat through and enjoyed, it was Goldeneye, i was 12 years old... then came the TND... I became a fan, and as many other did, I decided to go back and watch all the old films - which i eventually bought (countless copies of)..... now, lets remove Blofeld out of this discussion, because it's a forgone conclusion that he will be rebooted eventually - so give him a big hug.. there he goes.. wave bye bye.... and...... he's gone........ what i am talking about is other villains that aren't bald and don't stroke a white stroke.. guys like Goldfinger, Dr. No, Mr. Big...... I am saying don't reboot these guys.... but you're advocating - and accepting that it would be okay to reboot them as well?... correct?.

    This. I'm 23. I discovered Bond through GoldenEye when I was 6 years old. Over the years I've watched all of the original films many times and not once did I think. They should bring back Blofeld, or Goldfinger or Dr. No. Because they all came and went. They had their moment of glory. As for the Craig films. they should have to be bogged down by the past Bond films as that was the whole point of the reboot. To break the mold. Not be different while using old characters for nostalgic fun. I don't want to see old characters rebooted or reinvented because that's freaking! lazy. Whenever I think of a new Bond movie. I like to think about what new adventures he's going to go on and what NEW villain's he going to face. People like to compare Bond to Batman well Neither are alike. Batman's villains keep showing up because if Batman just killed them all then there wouldn't be no comics after. Keep Blofeld and all the other villains in the past!
  • edited November 2014 Posts: 4,622
    RogueAgent wrote: »
    I'm listening Adèle's "Skyfall" now on my headphones while doing some admin. work. And right now I am thinking: "Fuck sake, since 2006 our beloved Bond franchise has become a benchmark to be scared off!". Bond was big, Bond is now truly the biggest! It pisses on all other spy-parades with suave charm :-)! And this will continue with Bond 24. It'll destroy the "Mission: Impossibles", "Jason Bournes" and "Napoleon Solo's" next year. Mark my words ;-).

    Now I finish my work and I'll return on the forum tonight.

    Seconded but be careful with the language.

    Sorry m8 ;-). Had to do it for this time hehe.

    Actually you don't. The rest of us manage to control ourselves, but you're special apparently.
    Murdock wrote: »
    . Keep Blofeld and all the other villains in the past!
    Sure leave the other iconic Fleming villains alone, ie the ones that are story specific. If you bring back DN, you have to redo the Fleming story. That's his only context in the Bond universe. Same with GF. These villains are story specific. Same with Largo, Klebb, Mr Big and others.
    However other Fleming villains are not story specific, eg Ernst! That Persian cat is long out of the bag.
    Catman has already been featured directly or indirectly in 7 Eon films, 4 of which were outside of original Fleming source material.
    Ernst is flexible that way. The film precedent has been set. Comparisons with No, GF etc are apples vs oranges.


    ==actually re bringing back DN, GF etc, I would be all for Eon launching an HBO type side project in which all 21 Fleming novels and short stories are brought to the small-screen in faithful novel adaptations. Wouldn't even have to be period pieces. The stories could be faithfully adapted to present day. Knock them all out as an HBO side-project and in sequential order.
    Then @ludovico might get his authentic book-Blofeld. We'd finally see the Spangs on screen. We'd get a proper telling of the MR story etc. Each two-hour episode could be done on modest budget, with HBO level effects and action.
  • edited November 2014 Posts: 15,125
    But this is assuming they would merely recycle the Blofeld from the earlier films. Which is not what most people for his return are advocating here.

    And it's not like the novels are not used to create new villains anyway: Silva, Trevelyan, Grave, heck, even Zorin all have traits that were originally from the novel's Hugo Drax. Let's not forget the movies have a literary source material which can be used as inspiration, directly or indirectly. Even though the novels are from "the past". In Blofeld's case, he has been so different from the source material, getting back to it as inspiration for this revamped Blofeld would actually be new.
  • timmer wrote: »
    RogueAgent wrote: »
    I'm listening Adèle's "Skyfall" now on my headphones while doing some admin. work. And right now I am thinking: "Fuck sake, since 2006 our beloved Bond franchise has become a benchmark to be scared off!". Bond was big, Bond is now truly the biggest! It pisses on all other spy-parades with suave charm :-)! And this will continue with Bond 24. It'll destroy the "Mission: Impossibles", "Jason Bournes" and "Napoleon Solo's" next year. Mark my words ;-).

    Now I finish my work and I'll return on the forum tonight.

    Seconded but be careful with the language.

    Sorry m8 ;-). Had to do it for this time hehe.

    Actually you don't. The rest of us manage to control ourselves, but your special I guess.

    You really think that? In all honesty, for me it depends if the "language" is truly pointed at one particular person....and if it's being used to hurt another person. If you read my post carefully, and empathically, then I can't see which Bond fan in here I have offended. Moreover, if you read between the lines, the "language", you would have known that I merely ushered passionate happiness, defending our beloved franchise.

    I'm a liberal and forgiving guy. If you do feel offended personally @timmer, then I'm sorry ;-).
  • HASEROTHASEROT has returned like the tedious inevitability of an unloved season---
    Posts: 4,399
    HASEROT wrote: »
    HASEROT wrote: »
    Murdock wrote: »
    You don't get the idea behind my message. I'm afraid that if Blofeld is "rebooted" then EON might consider remaking the original films. And you fail to fully understand that Ben Wishaw's Q isn't a rebooted vesion Desmond Llewelyn's Q. Making him an entirely new character promoted to Q. Like John Cleese. 8-|

    Why would they want to remake the original films if Blofeld is rebooted? As for the new Q: he is the perfect example of a rebooted character. He is not an entirely new character just like Caig's James Bond isn't an entirely new character either just because he has blond hair now.

    it's an "opening of pandora's box" thing.... they decide to bring back Blofeld, and it works - then what is stopping them from rebooting Mr. Big from LALD, but making him more like the novel?... or rebooting Dr. No?..... it seems ludicrous to think that they would do such a thing now right? - but so did rebooting the whole James Bond timeline back in 2005 when it was announced that that was what they were doing for CR..... i think that is what @Murdock is trying to say... he's not saying that they will do it, but that it's further opening a gateway to even more possible rebooted villains, or even the sacrilegious land of remakes..

    Have you guys at times took into account "new" or "young" Bond fans? I mean, let's face it, the Bond fan base is also changing. And if, for this particular post I can be as black-and-white as @Matt_Helm, CR cashes €0.599 Million worldwide and then later SF cashes €1.180 Million worldwide, then there has to be a possibility that new, complete green, young, fans have been reached no?

    Just think of it. At least for Millions of people CR or SF was their first Bond experience. They were thrilled perhaps. For them, the "re-booted".....
    --> agent 007, James Bond,
    --> Le Chiffre (if you take into account the '67 movie)
    --> Vesper Lyndt
    --> René Mathis
    --> Aston Martin DB5 (hell, this time Bond won it, and didn't came from Q-Branch)
    --> "SPECTRE" (Quantum is that a bit no?)
    --> Q (gay, nerdy, young!)
    --> M 1 (Strictly spoken, because there's a new timeline, Judi Dench was rebooted too)
    --> M 2 (Ralph Fiennes)
    --> Moneypenny......
    ...must have had an incredible impact. Because these re-boots worked. And it's not just a re-boot. It's also a carefully executed process of "re-inventing", in a nuanced and creative way. It gave us, so far, Bond films that IMO are at least two times better than the formularic, unpersonal, soul-less Brosnan films (Not to mention the rather "save" Eighties, if you exclude LTK).

    And although I agree that thoughtless re-boots a la "Khannnn!!" should be out of the question, the wonderful re-inventions we have witnessed so far with CR, QOS and SF.....from those I truly can't get enough!.

    I'm also against completely re-making past Bond films, but that's not the case right now. The blending, re-inventing we have witnessed so far created wonderful stuff. And those new, young, "green" Bond fans perhaps love it...

    first off - i am only 30, i am not that old and detached from the "younger audience demographic"...... when i first saw a Bond movie that i sat through and enjoyed, it was Goldeneye, i was 12 years old... then came the TND... I became a fan, and as many other did, I decided to go back and watch all the old films - which i eventually bought (countless copies of)..... now, lets remove Blofeld out of this discussion, because it's a forgone conclusion that he will be rebooted eventually - so give him a big hug.. there he goes.. wave bye bye.... and...... he's gone........ what i am talking about is other villains that aren't bald and don't stroke a white stroke.. guys like Goldfinger, Dr. No, Mr. Big...... I am saying don't reboot these guys.... but you're advocating - and accepting that it would be okay to reboot them as well?... correct?.

    I think many forummembers in this topic are worrying way way too much about these things. It's merely the name that is being rumoured, while in fact we don't know a thing how the actual role will come across in the actual finished film. I call it "navel staring" on merely the plain, at this moment content-less name. Please let me elaborate.

    EXAMPLE 1 - SILVA: In my personal opinion I thought Silva was -if I'm comparing in a nitpicky, geeky way- a sort of re-invented 'Doctor No'. He had a fairly late, but nonetheless grand entrance as a big Bond villain. He had physical mutulations on his body (an entire jaw prothesis with fake teeth). He used the art of computer hacking to bring violence, destruction in London and to avenge his feelings on "M". The original 'Doctor No' had no hands, used the art of 'toppling' to let missile programs derail (call it the antique version of 'hacking') and had, at least for Honey, a rather fearful entrance in the 2nd half of the film.

    Had Silva really been renamed 'Doctor No', but had the actual written role stayed intact and had Javier Bardem played Doctor No exactly like he would have played Silva, then suddenly we should have been worried more? What a piece of nonsense. Yes, they would have used the name 'Doctor No' then, but he would be re-invented completely to today's standards no. So, this is just a name-thing.

    EXAMPLE 2 - 'LE CHIFFRE': Let's say "Casino Royale '67" was an official EON production. Is it then justified to worry more about the use of the name Le Chiffre in the more faithful movie adaptation "Casino Royale '06"? Off course not! The role would still have been played by Mads Mikkelsen as enigmatic as ever. Moreover, do not forget that 'Le Chiffre' from the 2006 film was quite a bit different from the fat French banker with-walking-stick-turned-gun from the actual novel. Mads' version was suave, slim, rather attractive and had a bleeding eye. He was an Albanian chess protégé. Any problems with that re-invention? Not from my part.

    EXAMPLE 3 - 'STROMBERG': Now that I call an example the-other-way-around. Yes, his name was different from the 1967 version of Blofeld in "You Only Live Twice". But other than that.....well....come on guys. Stromberg was a copy of Blofeld. And if Kevin McGlory hadn't interferred, than Curt Jürgens would have been named Blofeld anyway. For sure. Now this Stromberg....I found that a lame, uninspired copy of Blofeld really. Both Donald's version of the man and Curt used buttons to kill people. How...creative. So did I find the 1977 villain more uninspiring and from a creative perspective boring, simply because of his name? Off course not. It was the role that was written for him that I found uninspiring.

    TO SUMMARIZE: At this particular stage of the Bond 24 production I find it slightly preposterous how certain people "fear" for the fact that after Bond 24 -the whole damn film isn't even in production yet- we suddenly get flooded by a "recycle craze" of villain names that have been used in previous Bond films, like Goldfinger and Mr Big.............when in essence we should worry about HOW the damn villain works in the finished film, regardless of the name tag!

    If the name Goldfinger will be used for Bond 25, then it wouldn't be a shameless character of the man we saw in the 1964 film. We know by now how EON and B&M master the art of "re-inventing". But even more so, THIS is not going to happen. Goldfinger as name will not be re-cycled. We saw Silva in SF no? New name, perhaps slightly reminiscent, in a modern way, of Dr. No. But alltogether completely re-invented.

    The reason why Blofeld is being discussed so heavily, to an extent that at this stage I'm ready to kill myself, is that at times I tend to see the Bond films with a marketing-eye as well. I simply love the brand names "Blofeld" and "S.P.E.C.T.R.E", as they have brand recognition (much more than Goldfinger IMO), history, phonetically sound wunderful, and were created by Fleming. But sjee, if you read my entire dissertation above, then you must know by now that EON and B&M would not bring Blofeld back to make him a copy of a copy of Strom"Blofeld"berg (TSWLM) and Blofeld (YOLT). They know better by now. Also, unless Goldfinger, Blofeld and S.P.E.C.T.R.E. can be used as an umbrella to completely different villains. Fleming's essence of creating S.P.E.C.T.R.E and Blofeld was because of this.

    And guess what, we already saw a revived "S.P.E.C.T.R.E." in "Quantum Of Solace". But it was named QUANTUM as we all know. Had B&M and EON obtained the rights from McGlory's estate 10 years earlier, then perhaps we would have seen the re-booted S.P.E.C.T.R.E., by the exact name, in the 2008 film.

    SHORT FINAL CONCLUSION: Stop it. Don't post too black-and-white by saying "Keep Blofeld dead!". Trust EON, B&M, Sam Mendes and the screenplaywriters a bit more. The orthodox fears and elaborately formulated problems, from for example @RC7, are at this stage slightly ridiculous. Especially when you take into account the above examples.

    And, after 52 eventful, creative, inspiring years, it's an illusion to think that the power of a 'name' has the possibility of destroying the entire portrayal of a villain. If you can see parts of past Bond villains in newly named characters (Silva), then you know what I mean. Or if you can't compare Blofeld in Bond 24 with previous Blofelds because he has been re-invented completely and is entirely different from what initial fears told you, then you know what I mean.

    you keep going back to Blofeld... stop it... i dont care about Blofeld anymore, an argument for his eventual reboot is not what i am talking about....

    i am talking about the rest of Bond's rouge gallery of villains..... what i take from your logic - is that it's okay to reboot past villains, as long as they are done differently - that's your logic behind Blofeld - and you applied the same same logic to LeChiffre.... Mr. Big in the film LALD was almost nothing like his novelized version - so why not reboot him? - keep the name and everything...
  • Posts: 15,125
    I would not be against using Mr. Big, closer to the novel, but scratching his nickname and what has been used in previous movies before. You can call him Buonaparte Ignace Gallia, make him actually a big, large man, of Haitian origins, and you have a completely different villain than Kananga. And a villain far closer to the original LALD character .

    The Spangs brothers and general Grubozaboischikov could also be used, for the first time in their case.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,351
    Ludovico wrote: »
    I would not be against using Mr. Big, closer to the novel, but scratching his nickname and what has been used in previous movies before. You can call him Buonaparte Ignace Gallia, make him actually a big, large man, of Haitian origins, and you have a completely different villain than Kananga. And a villain far closer to the original LALD character .

    The Spangs brothers and general Grubozaboischikov could also be used, for the first time in their case.

    I agree with you on this once since EoN opted to make Mr. Big a completely different character. If the next Bond villain was simply called Buonaparte Ignace Gallia and no mention of Mr. Big. I'm all for it.
  • edited November 2014 Posts: 11,119
    HASEROT wrote: »
    HASEROT wrote: »
    HASEROT wrote: »
    Murdock wrote: »
    You don't get the idea behind my message. I'm afraid that if Blofeld is "rebooted" then EON might consider remaking the original films. And you fail to fully understand that Ben Wishaw's Q isn't a rebooted vesion Desmond Llewelyn's Q. Making him an entirely new character promoted to Q. Like John Cleese. 8-|

    Why would they want to remake the original films if Blofeld is rebooted? As for the new Q: he is the perfect example of a rebooted character. He is not an entirely new character just like Caig's James Bond isn't an entirely new character either just because he has blond hair now.

    it's an "opening of pandora's box" thing.... they decide to bring back Blofeld, and it works - then what is stopping them from rebooting Mr. Big from LALD, but making him more like the novel?... or rebooting Dr. No?..... it seems ludicrous to think that they would do such a thing now right? - but so did rebooting the whole James Bond timeline back in 2005 when it was announced that that was what they were doing for CR..... i think that is what @Murdock is trying to say... he's not saying that they will do it, but that it's further opening a gateway to even more possible rebooted villains, or even the sacrilegious land of remakes..

    Have you guys at times took into account "new" or "young" Bond fans? I mean, let's face it, the Bond fan base is also changing. And if, for this particular post I can be as black-and-white as @Matt_Helm, CR cashes €0.599 Million worldwide and then later SF cashes €1.180 Million worldwide, then there has to be a possibility that new, complete green, young, fans have been reached no?

    Just think of it. At least for Millions of people CR or SF was their first Bond experience. They were thrilled perhaps. For them, the "re-booted".....
    --> agent 007, James Bond,
    --> Le Chiffre (if you take into account the '67 movie)
    --> Vesper Lyndt
    --> René Mathis
    --> Aston Martin DB5 (hell, this time Bond won it, and didn't came from Q-Branch)
    --> "SPECTRE" (Quantum is that a bit no?)
    --> Q (gay, nerdy, young!)
    --> M 1 (Strictly spoken, because there's a new timeline, Judi Dench was rebooted too)
    --> M 2 (Ralph Fiennes)
    --> Moneypenny......
    ...must have had an incredible impact. Because these re-boots worked. And it's not just a re-boot. It's also a carefully executed process of "re-inventing", in a nuanced and creative way. It gave us, so far, Bond films that IMO are at least two times better than the formularic, unpersonal, soul-less Brosnan films (Not to mention the rather "save" Eighties, if you exclude LTK).

    And although I agree that thoughtless re-boots a la "Khannnn!!" should be out of the question, the wonderful re-inventions we have witnessed so far with CR, QOS and SF.....from those I truly can't get enough!.

    I'm also against completely re-making past Bond films, but that's not the case right now. The blending, re-inventing we have witnessed so far created wonderful stuff. And those new, young, "green" Bond fans perhaps love it...

    first off - i am only 30, i am not that old and detached from the "younger audience demographic"...... when i first saw a Bond movie that i sat through and enjoyed, it was Goldeneye, i was 12 years old... then came the TND... I became a fan, and as many other did, I decided to go back and watch all the old films - which i eventually bought (countless copies of)..... now, lets remove Blofeld out of this discussion, because it's a forgone conclusion that he will be rebooted eventually - so give him a big hug.. there he goes.. wave bye bye.... and...... he's gone........ what i am talking about is other villains that aren't bald and don't stroke a white stroke.. guys like Goldfinger, Dr. No, Mr. Big...... I am saying don't reboot these guys.... but you're advocating - and accepting that it would be okay to reboot them as well?... correct?.

    I think many forummembers in this topic are worrying way way too much about these things. It's merely the name that is being rumoured, while in fact we don't know a thing how the actual role will come across in the actual finished film. I call it "navel staring" on merely the plain, at this moment content-less name. Please let me elaborate.

    EXAMPLE 1 - SILVA: In my personal opinion I thought Silva was -if I'm comparing in a nitpicky, geeky way- a sort of re-invented 'Doctor No'. He had a fairly late, but nonetheless grand entrance as a big Bond villain. He had physical mutulations on his body (an entire jaw prothesis with fake teeth). He used the art of computer hacking to bring violence, destruction in London and to avenge his feelings on "M". The original 'Doctor No' had no hands, used the art of 'toppling' to let missile programs derail (call it the antique version of 'hacking') and had, at least for Honey, a rather fearful entrance in the 2nd half of the film.

    Had Silva really been renamed 'Doctor No', but had the actual written role stayed intact and had Javier Bardem played Doctor No exactly like he would have played Silva, then suddenly we should have been worried more? What a piece of nonsense. Yes, they would have used the name 'Doctor No' then, but he would be re-invented completely to today's standards no. So, this is just a name-thing.

    EXAMPLE 2 - 'LE CHIFFRE': Let's say "Casino Royale '67" was an official EON production. Is it then justified to worry more about the use of the name Le Chiffre in the more faithful movie adaptation "Casino Royale '06"? Off course not! The role would still have been played by Mads Mikkelsen as enigmatic as ever. Moreover, do not forget that 'Le Chiffre' from the 2006 film was quite a bit different from the fat French banker with-walking-stick-turned-gun from the actual novel. Mads' version was suave, slim, rather attractive and had a bleeding eye. He was an Albanian chess protégé. Any problems with that re-invention? Not from my part.

    EXAMPLE 3 - 'STROMBERG': Now that I call an example the-other-way-around. Yes, his name was different from the 1967 version of Blofeld in "You Only Live Twice". But other than that.....well....come on guys. Stromberg was a copy of Blofeld. And if Kevin McGlory hadn't interferred, than Curt Jürgens would have been named Blofeld anyway. For sure. Now this Stromberg....I found that a lame, uninspired copy of Blofeld really. Both Donald's version of the man and Curt used buttons to kill people. How...creative. So did I find the 1977 villain more uninspiring and from a creative perspective boring, simply because of his name? Off course not. It was the role that was written for him that I found uninspiring.

    TO SUMMARIZE: At this particular stage of the Bond 24 production I find it slightly preposterous how certain people "fear" for the fact that after Bond 24 -the whole damn film isn't even in production yet- we suddenly get flooded by a "recycle craze" of villain names that have been used in previous Bond films, like Goldfinger and Mr Big.............when in essence we should worry about HOW the damn villain works in the finished film, regardless of the name tag!

    If the name Goldfinger will be used for Bond 25, then it wouldn't be a shameless character of the man we saw in the 1964 film. We know by now how EON and B&M master the art of "re-inventing". But even more so, THIS is not going to happen. Goldfinger as name will not be re-cycled. We saw Silva in SF no? New name, perhaps slightly reminiscent, in a modern way, of Dr. No. But alltogether completely re-invented.

    The reason why Blofeld is being discussed so heavily, to an extent that at this stage I'm ready to kill myself, is that at times I tend to see the Bond films with a marketing-eye as well. I simply love the brand names "Blofeld" and "S.P.E.C.T.R.E", as they have brand recognition (much more than Goldfinger IMO), history, phonetically sound wunderful, and were created by Fleming. But sjee, if you read my entire dissertation above, then you must know by now that EON and B&M would not bring Blofeld back to make him a copy of a copy of Strom"Blofeld"berg (TSWLM) and Blofeld (YOLT). They know better by now. Also, unless Goldfinger, Blofeld and S.P.E.C.T.R.E. can be used as an umbrella to completely different villains. Fleming's essence of creating S.P.E.C.T.R.E and Blofeld was because of this.

    And guess what, we already saw a revived "S.P.E.C.T.R.E." in "Quantum Of Solace". But it was named QUANTUM as we all know. Had B&M and EON obtained the rights from McGlory's estate 10 years earlier, then perhaps we would have seen the re-booted S.P.E.C.T.R.E., by the exact name, in the 2008 film.

    SHORT FINAL CONCLUSION: Stop it. Don't post too black-and-white by saying "Keep Blofeld dead!". Trust EON, B&M, Sam Mendes and the screenplaywriters a bit more. The orthodox fears and elaborately formulated problems, from for example @RC7, are at this stage slightly ridiculous. Especially when you take into account the above examples.

    And, after 52 eventful, creative, inspiring years, it's an illusion to think that the power of a 'name' has the possibility of destroying the entire portrayal of a villain. If you can see parts of past Bond villains in newly named characters (Silva), then you know what I mean. Or if you can't compare Blofeld in Bond 24 with previous Blofelds because he has been re-invented completely and is entirely different from what initial fears told you, then you know what I mean.

    you keep going back to Blofeld... stop it... i dont care about Blofeld anymore, an argument for his eventual reboot is not what i am talking about....

    i am talking about the rest of Bond's rouge gallery of villains..... what i take from your logic - is that it's okay to reboot past villains, as long as they are done differently - that's your logic behind Blofeld - and you applied the same same logic to LeChiffre.... Mr. Big in the film LALD was almost nothing like his novelized version - so why not reboot him? - keep the name and everything...

    Then you haven't read my conclusion entirely. It's not about bringing back a certain name for me. For me it's about the character, how it's written, how it plays out in the film, regardless of the tag, the name attached to it. Blofeld or Silva....for me it doesn't matter for the actual role. Although I think "Blofeld" is a very good brand, but that doesn't tell you anything about the entire written character in the screenplay.

    That's why I am actually quite more excited about the name Oberhauser....which no one really seem to discuss...so far.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,351
    Can you stop quoting!!! someone quoted my name with a @ and I keep getting notifications!
  • Murdock wrote: »
    Can you stop quoting!!! someone quoted my name with a @ and I keep getting notifications!

    I'm going to have dinner anyway ;-).

  • Posts: 4,619
    @Murdock You can disable the notifications in the Settings menu.
  • edited November 2014 Posts: 4,622
    I'm a liberal and forgiving guy.
    How lovely for you.
    If you do feel offended personally @timmer, then I'm sorry ;-).
    Actually, its just a matter of civil discourse, not to mention policy of this message board. The rest of us manage, maybe you could make effort too.

    btw, for future reference, not that I am arsed in this instance, but for your future apologizing endeavours, the "if you were offended" apology, ie the conditional apology, is actually a non-apology or a weasal apology. It's very popular with polticians.
    An honest apology, is where you simply apologize for your action ie " I am sorry for being a potty mouth, against board rules" No strings. No conditions.


  • HASEROTHASEROT has returned like the tedious inevitability of an unloved season---
    edited November 2014 Posts: 4,399
    Stop it. Don't post too black-and-white by saying "Keep Blofeld dead!". Trust EON, B&M, Sam Mendes and the screenplaywriters a bit more. The orthodox fears and elaborately formulated problems, from for example @RC7, are at this stage slightly ridiculous. Especially when you take into account the above examples.

    first off - never, ever tell me what to do..... ok cochise?

    secondly - i've read all your examples to death, over and over and over again...... still not going to change my mind - get used to it..

    lastly - i've fully accepted ESB return in either B24 or a future film.... what i am against is this series continuously orbiting around it's own nostalgia by using the reboot excuse..
    Then you haven't read my conclusion entirely. It's not about bringing back a certain name for me. For me it's about the character, how it's written, how it plays out in the film, regardless of the tag, the name attached to it. Blofeld or Silva....for me it doesn't matter for the actual role. Although I think "Blofeld" is a very good brand, but that doesn't tell you anything about the entire written character in the screenplay.

    That's why I am actually quite more excited about the name Oberhauser....which no one really seem to discuss...so far.

    then why hammer the name Blofeld down our throats continually.... a rebooted Blofeld could easily be Jackie McMantits, and no one would care... Zorin was essentially an 80s GF.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,351
    You can't stop his opinions, but his opinion's can stop you. Time to face reality. ;)
    Graves4.jpg
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    @Murdock You can disable the notifications in the Settings menu.

    Would be more useful if we could disable members.
  • HASEROTHASEROT has returned like the tedious inevitability of an unloved season---
    Posts: 4,399
    Murdock wrote: »
    You can't stop his opinions, but his opinion's can stop you. Time to face reality. ;)
    Graves4.jpg

    LMAO HOW TRUE!! =))
  • WalecsWalecs On Her Majesty's Secret Service
    edited November 2014 Posts: 3,157
    Murdock wrote: »
    You can't stop his opinions, but his opinion's can stop you. Time to face reality. ;)
    Graves4.jpg

    No, time to face gravity. :))
    *epic rendition of Bond theme* ;)
  • HASEROT wrote: »
    Stop it guys. Don't post too black-and-white by saying "Keep Blofeld dead!". Trust EON, B&M, Sam Mendes and the screenplaywriters a bit more. The orthodox fears and elaborately formulated problems, from for example @RC7, are at this stage slightly ridiculous. Especially when you take into account the above examples.

    first off - never, ever tell me what to do..... ok cochise?

    secondly - i've read all your examples to death, over and over and over again...... still not going to change my mind - get used to it..

    lastly - i've fully accepted ESB return in either B24 or a future film.... what i am against is this series continuously orbiting around it's own nostalgia by using the reboot excuse..
    Then you haven't read my conclusion entirely. It's not about bringing back a certain name for me. For me it's about the character, how it's written, how it plays out in the film, regardless of the tag, the name attached to it. Blofeld or Silva....for me it doesn't matter for the actual role. Although I think "Blofeld" is a very good brand, but that doesn't tell you anything about the entire written character in the screenplay.

    That's why I am actually quite more excited about the name Oberhauser....which no one really seem to discuss...so far.

    then why hammer the name Blofeld down our throats continually.... a rebooted Blofeld could easily be Jackie McMantits, and no one would care... Zorin was essentially an 80s GF.

    In all honesty, I've changed my opinion a bit.

    I've written such a lengthy post to make that clear really. I tried to give good examples of why we put so much importance on a name or brand, whereas we know from the past how the actual characters or roles appeared in the final product...the final film. So before a movie isn't even finalized, it is not that clear to say IF the film is orbiting around its own nostalgia...and if the film will use the "cheap re-boot" button.

    Just compare Stromberg with Silva. The first, for me comes across as a Blofeld-rip-off (worse than a re-boot). An example that "we" actually fear. We don't bother about him, because he only has a different name (they wanted to name him Blofeld....). Whereas the latter, Silva, could be perceived as a re-booted Dr. No if you try very very hard. Perhaps some don't even see it. UNTIL they actually name him Dr. No, and not Silva. That's my point really.....

    So in this particular post I was by FAR not hammering Blofeld down your throat. I was "hammering a conclusion down your throat" that has nothing to do with Blofeld in particular, but that is supported by various examples/arguments. Examples of Silva, Dr. No, Le Chiffre, Oberhauser. I wanted to say that in the end it's about how the character is written, how he's being portrayed and how "complex" he is....and then for me the name doesn't matter to me.

    Blofeld? I just love the blank, phonetical name. It's a good brand.

    And in all honesty I wasn't trying to attack you personally :-(. Sorry for that. I was talking about people in general.

  • edited November 2014 Posts: 11,119
    timmer wrote: »
    I'm a liberal and forgiving guy.
    How lovely for you.
    If you do feel offended personally @timmer, then I'm sorry ;-).
    Actually, its just a matter of civil discourse, not to mention policy of this message board. The rest of us manage, maybe you could make effort too.

    btw, for future reference, not that I am arsed in this instance, but for your future apologizing endeavours, the "if you were offended" apology, ie the conditional apology, is actually a non-apology or a weasal apology. It's very popular with polticians.
    An honest apology, is where you simply apologize for your action ie " I am sorry for being a potty mouth, against board rules" No strings. No conditions.

    I use "if", because I did not personally attack you or offend you. I Let the moderators decide if I really offended someone personally, and than they may ban me for that.

    I got a warning for being "uncivilised". There's absolutely no need to elaborate further on that by yourself @Timmer. Moderators can do that. By the way, you sound awfully "arsed" (word used by you). I can only think you felt irritated......
  • RC7RC7
    edited November 2014 Posts: 10,512
    Walecs wrote: »
    Murdock wrote: »
    You can't stop his opinions, but his opinion's can stop you. Time to face reality. ;)
    Graves4.jpg

    No, time to face gravity. :))
    *epic rendition of Bond theme* ;)

    "You have no idea how much my opinion is about to change your world".
  • edited November 2014 Posts: 11,119
    RC7 wrote: »
    Walecs wrote: »
    Murdock wrote: »
    You can't stop his opinions, but his opinion's can stop you. Time to face reality. ;)
    Graves4.jpg

    No, time to face gravity. :))
    *epic rendition of Bond theme* ;)

    "You have no idea how much my opinion is about to change your world".

    Indeed, @Gustav_Graves needs to die. To disappear.
  • Posts: 12,526
    Nice to see a few more details come out tonight. Really looking forward to hopefully a very exciting, hard edged snow sequence again in a Bond movie! :-bd
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,351
    RC7 wrote: »
    Walecs wrote: »
    Murdock wrote: »
    You can't stop his opinions, but his opinion's can stop you. Time to face reality. ;)
    Graves4.jpg

    No, time to face gravity. :))
    *epic rendition of Bond theme* ;)

    "You have no idea how much my opinion is about to change your world".

    Indeed, @Gustav_Graves needs to die. To disappear.

    No you don't. Just ease up a bit. Your a passionate Bond fan. Perhaps a little too passionate. A lot of us just don't want to be drilled with the same points over and over again, thread after thread.
Sign In or Register to comment.