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
Even then, why couldn't Bardem have his Henry Fonda moment? When Sergio Leone made ONCE UPON A TIME IN THE WEST, he deliberately cast Fonda in the role of the villain simply because Fonda was, at the time, in the stereotypical good-guy mold. Leono wanted to play with the audience's expectations, showing Fonda's character, Frank, doing something despicable before revealing that it was Henry Fonda.
For the last time, why bring back this character, he's a relic of the past, was seen to have been killed off after Diamonds, some debate about the FYEO opening, so who is this guy we're supposed to see next year, Blofeld's son or Blofeld II, it can't be the same one as before because he's offically dead (mental exhaustion)
All said, and bottom line is, I genuinely hope they don't bring back this character this time around. It's totally unneccesary
Personally I'd like to see it, but I don't want to get my hopes up despite all the hype.
people have taken one candid remark and have run wild with it - adding more fuel to the fire is that beyond those in attendance during the presser, a vast majority of the roles are still a mystery..... people assume that because Fiennes is on board, that he will be one of the villains, even a cameo as Blofeld - which who knows if it is a true... it's still in doubt if EON even has the rights to use the character.. all the searching I have done still leads back to the same place - which is as of right now, the rights still belong to the McClory estate, and no purchases have been made by anyone over the past 3 years.
I would expect Fiennes as Major Boothroyd, before Blofeld at this point.
With that in mind, why couldn't EON go in for one definitive interpretation of Blofeld in SKYFALL? Introduce him, explore him and kill him off so that his repuation cannot be tarnished in the future by films that dilute Fiennes' performance.
I'm pulling for Jill St. John in a bald cap. Turns out it *was* hell getting those diamonds back.
I don't know how it works in England, but court documents are public record here in the states.. any news of a rights buyout would've been discovered by now - it didn't take long for news to break about EON finally attaining the rights to CR.
As for Albert Finney I play my card he is going to be the next Q.
Sorry - but I hear this all the time on IMDB and drives me nuts - like blofeld's cat in YOLT... why is there this consortium of people who think once Craig's tenure is up that they'll simply reboot and start over?.. they went 40 years and 5 actors before they rebooted with CR... it wont happen again anytime soon.
Easy easy mister. You almost sound....angry. I try to be careful as well. You are right. Blofeld and SPECTRE are no longer Fleming property. But how do YOU know Blofeld and SPECTRE have not become EON property over the past years?
Your example about the videogame as being it a personal shooter or a story-based videogame is not sufficient, in that it does not say for which purpose the characters Blofeld and SPECTRE can be used without royalties to McGlory (estate) and for which purpose not. As far as I know, McGlory didn't want other people to use Blofeld and SPECTRE....AT ALL.
There is still the legal statement I have mentioned before: "GoldenEye 007: Reloaded © 2011 Danjaq, LLC and United Artists Corporation. 007 and related James Bond trademarks © 1962-2011 Danjaq, LLC and United Artists Corporation. 007 TM and related James Bond trademarks are trademarks of Danjaq, LLC licensed by EON. All Rights Reserved. Game Code © 2011 Activision Publishing, Inc. Activision is a registered trademark of Activision Publishing, Inc."
<b>Now, step by step some arguments based on the above</b>:
<b>1)</b> Focus on the words 'related James Bond trademarks'. You, me, everyone in here do not know for certain IF EON <B>silently</B> bought the rights for the names 'Blofeld' and 'SPECTRE' back from McGlory's children. Also, we do not know what Sony's role is (Remember, thanks to Sony acquiring Columbia, it was finally possible to produce a worthy version of 'Casino Royale').
<b>2)</b> The lawsuit from the 1960's (Approved in favour of McGlory, in which his name should be credited and for which McGlory should be paid, IF EON starts using 'Blofeld' and 'SPECTRE') do not specify AT ALL that there should be made a difference between a 'good storyline/plot' or a 'personal shooter' game. For the very simple reason, that in those days videogames did not exist. So that argument is bullocks.
<b>3)</b> Why the hell would EON risk using the names 'Blofeld' and 'SPECTRE' in the new videogame 'GoldenEye 007: Reloaded', when in 'FRWL' they agreed on using 'Octopus' instead? Both Wilson and Babs Broccoli, together with son David, are involved in the videogame-franchise as well. They functioned as consultants for both ActiVision and EuroCom. If the producers of 'FYEO' were so keen in showing the audience that Bond does not need Blofeld and SPECTRE, why bring those two names back?
<b>4)</b> Off course legal expert Michael G. Wilson knows he is in a good position to win future lawsuits, IF his goal is creating a legal precedent (We all know MGM/UA and EON won the August 30th 2001 lawsuit that McGlory filed against them). But everyone knows the mere risk of facing a lawsuit is always costly.
<b>5)</b> Perhaps EON and the estate of Kevin McGlory settled on something, in that McGlory's name will be credited one more time in the new Bond film + a nice, but not too high amount of royalty for McGlory's kids. I actually think the kids would be very satisfied with that. A nice gesture IMO.
<b>6)</b> And Kevin McGlory himself is dead, finished, period. He cannot produce a film with the names 'Blofeld' and 'SPECTRE' anymore. This creates some new, easier and moreover <b>cheaper</b> possibilities as well to produce 'Skyfall' with 'SPECTRE' and 'Blofeld'.
<b>7)</b> And then there still is John Logan's remark earlier this year that "Bond should always fight Blofeld". You cannot be for sure that Logan will use the bald-headed villain. But you can also not rule out the possibility.
<b>8)</b> Maybe that's why during the press conference the producers and Mendes specifically mentioned that this new film is "not based on previous Fleming work", leaving the possibility that McGlory will silently be credited for 'Skyfall'.
<b>My point</b>: You don't know for certain, I don't know for certain. Perhaps 'Blofeld' and 'SPECTRE' will not return. But you also can't rule out that possibility. Let's just wait and see.
my point is, there is no secrecy when obtaining rights of property through the courts... court documents are all public record - and thus, if any rights were attained between the time of his death, and now - SOMEONE would've tipped the media, and we here at Mi6 would've been made aware of it.. thats how it works... who knows how Activision got the rights to use Blofeld in the game - they probably were able to via a legal loophole, that allows them to in a videogame.... but that being said - videogame rights, and filming rights are 2 completely different animals
someone's death has little to do with getting the rights at an easier rate, or even at a bargain... look how long it took EON to finally get the rights to Casino Royale? - almost 40 years after Fleming died... and they had tried repeatedly - and when EON finally got their hands on it, it was big news all over Bond sites... don't you think the same would apply here? - as Mr White said "We have people everywhere." ... someone would've coughed up details by now... come on man, use common sense - that story would be huge.
simply giving someone credit via a "thank you" or "all property is owned by so and so" in the credits of the film is not good enough, technically, in the eyes of the court that is still stealing - for property to be used in any manner, specific written and approved documentation needs to be used... McClory once operated on that handshake deal - look where it got him.. i doubt he'd ever do it again, or much less let his heirs do it...
again, simply throwing a character owned by someone else into a film they didn't sign off on, cannot, and will not happen - if it did in this instance, no doubt McClory's estate would've put the kibosh to the production, and we'd be at another legal standstill, for violating copyright law.... if the copyrights were refused to EON, the only they'd be able to attain them is when the copyrights run out - which wouldn't happened for at least another 50 years...
had rights been attained, there wouldn't be any need for QUANTUM would there? just call it SPECTRE... which is essentially what they are doing.... granted, I will give you that Fiennes could be playing a Blofeld-esque character.... but it legally cannot be Ernst Stavro Blofeld - or any variation of that name...
if Fiennes does in fact turn out to be Blofeld - I will admit that I was wrong, and I will gladly eat crow for it.... but as it stands right now, based on all the information surrounding this subject that I have gathered, I feel confident in saying he is not coming back..... if EON and McClory's estate came to a deal, and managed to keep it under wraps for this long - kudos to them.... because nothing remains secret for very long anymore.
To summarize everything -I am too lazy to react on this-: It is time that the MI6 starts doing some intensive research/investigation. Yesterday I have been searching the internet for two hours to find some public records about recent legal settlements in which EON Productions are involved (With 'GoldenEye 007: Reloaded' as an interesting legal precedent). But I don't know where to start.
We can talk until we weigh an ounce, but we won't get a final confirmation about who is right at the moment. Until we know for sure what happened in the case of 'GoldenEye: Reloaded', I suggest we stop proving who is right.
PS: The case of 'Casino Royale' was fairly simple. Ever since the 1960's, Columbia Pictures had the rights of Ian Fleming's first novel. So when Sony Pictures acquired Columbia Pictures, things became suddenly much easier for EON Productions, as EON was already teaming up with Sony.
Um, where is this 'info from the set' and I highly doubt Fiennes has signed on for more than one film.
For too long I’ve heard people rant about Blofeld being a relic who should never return to the series because he’s silly and old-fashioned and totally implausible. I could not agree with these people more. I wager to say that Blofeld is the only realistic villain left in today’s world for Bond to combat. In Skyfall in the scene where M is being questioned by the oversight committee, M stresses that espionage hasn’t gotten easier since the Cold War but gotten harder because now their enemies aren’t countries they’re individuals, and it’s much easier for people to hide in the shadows. Quantum has proven themselves to be quite effective at living in the shadows in QoS, and so will Blofeld as their leader in Bond 24. It is the next logical step and I couldn’t be more thrilled!