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
Funny I thought about Two Face too. Hope it won't be as big a disfiguration as that.
Like I said before, there's an other option: Oberhauser's face will simply be blackened/obscured, like we saw in the trailer.
At this stage I can't believe that they are going the Two-Face-way. Also, the CGI-markers could also point out another option: Doppelgängers. Perhaps Denbigh and Oberhauser will have something in common.....facially.
But right now I think it's too early to say that they are simply going to give Oberhauser more scars than the original Blofeld had.
You wouldn't need that level of mapping to obscure his face.
the simplest explanation is usually the right one.
Or his role is relatively minor.
I think you're overthinking it with the Denbigh angle, personally. The reason he hasn't been seen is that he's most likely a government bureaucrat whose scenes are mainly interiors. It wouldn't surprise me if he turns out to be a SPECTRE mole/agent in some capacity, but the idea of Denbigh/Oberhauser being one and the same, yet also Blofeld? That is far too convoluted.
When everything is said and done in the current cast who is the closest to Blofeld?
Exactly. This is Mendes, he clearly loves the old films and takes them as visual inspiration more than the novels. The idea of Blofeld being disfigured during the course of this movie and being 'revealed' towards the end reeks of the kind of thing he would do. Not going for something completely original, but taking the cinematic iconography and giving it a twist. All these images point to Oberhauser being Blofeld and my opinion is that, based on these images, he will indeed appear scarred/disfigured to some degree during these London scenes. I really don't think it's more complex than that. It doesn't need to be, does it? The real intrigue will surely be in how Oberhauser is Blofeld and what, if any, relationship he has with Bond.
What time line you operating on here, because we are not going by novels, or old films timelines, Blofeld can be 20, 40, 50 etc, he could be black, white, chinese Blofeld can be male or female.
sure they can just use the name. So can Bond actually. He can be black, white, female and what have you. If they want Blofeld back I guess they want the character not merely the name. And a female Blofeld in her 20s would pretty much not be Blofeld and defeat the object of bringing Bond's nemesis back.
Call me naive but I do think the source material has some importance still. And Blofeld ain't Andrew Scott. In fact making him a disguised British civil servant would make little sense.
But come on @RC7, it's not just "typical Mendes", in that he "clearly loves the old films and takes them as visual inspiration more than the novels". It's not only that. Director Martin Campbell wasn't that different. Also he used a narrative background on Alec Trevelyan's scar, which I never really read in a Fleming novel.
But most importantly, he didn't faithfully visualize Le Chiffre either for his 2nd Bond film "Casino Royale". In the novel, Le Chiffre is a rather fat, ugly Frenchman with no scars or whatsoever. For the cinematic Le Chiffre they turned him into a very attractive, charismatic banker, who looked like Bond's equal and who was given a blind eye with blood-leaking tear-ducts. Not exactly faithful to the novels. In a way, Le Chiffre from the 1967 spoof was adapted visually way more faithfully.
Or what about the cinematic interpretation of our beloved Doctor No. He didn't exactly look like the full Chinese as was written in the novel:
Having said all this, I think I'm looking very much forward on how Blofeld/Oberhauser will be interpreted by John Logan/Sam Mendes :-).
I don't think you quite get my point. I didn't say it was 'typical' Mendes, because that sounds derogatory and I've every faith in them delivering a great interpretation of Blofeld. What I'm trying to say is that Mendes obviously uses the films as a solid frame of reference, he reintroduced Q and MP in the same film, he weaved in more of, as he called it 'the old irony' of the movies, they reintroduced M's office as seen in the films and he even telegraphed in the DB5 direct from GF.
I'm not saying other directors would necessarily do it differently, but the Craig era has been the only real chance a director has had to mix things up. The formula was there not just to twist but to re-establish on different terms. For example, Ponsonby could've been introduced as Bond's secretary rather than MP. Bond could've had a personal car that he fine tunes, rather than one provided by Q-Branch. We could've seen May appear as a new recurring character, but as it is we're getting cinematic stalwarts re-worked and re-introduced. So what I'm saying is, it will be no surprise if Oberhauser/Blofeld is visualised with more a tip of the hat to the cinematic Blofeld than the literary.
Re. your examples, you're talking of characters who represent the definitive cinematic version of their respective character. They appear only once. Blofeld appears many times, but doesn't ever visually represent the literary incarnation. I guess what I'm saying is, there was an opportunity there this time around, but they appear to be alluding to a blend of the old cinematic version. Charles Gray's hair and Donald Pleasance's face!
I do get your point now. And partially I agree with you. They could have re-established the character differently, with the examples you mentioned. But even then, I think Mendes/Campbell actually did in some aspects exactly the things you are asking for.
Despite some minor continuity mistakes, Bond's private car is now the DB5. Yes, they could have given Craig a 1968 DBS. Or perhaps even a 1966 DB6. Apart from that aspect, Bond still uses a beautiful classic car for private use.
Also, do not forget that with regard to the villain in "SPECTRE", we don't know things for certain just yet. In all honesty, I haven't read any of the Sony leaks. All we know so far is that another unused Fleming-character will be used: Oberhauser. Never used before. Or what about the on-screen appearance of Bond's parents, as written in the obituary of "You Only Live Twice": Andrew Bond & Monique DeLacroix-Bond. And don't forget a very original take on Bond becoming fit again in a Shrublands-esque fashion! It happened in "Skyfall", and instead of "Thunderball's Shrublands, they used Churchill's bunkers.
So give Mendes a bit more credit for actually referencing Fleming's novels. I know he could have done perhaps a bit more of this. I agree.
But what if......Waltz will actually play another arch nemesis: Doctor Julius No?? :-?
It would make the link to the Höffler Clinic slightly more realistic. Blofeld never was a real doctor of medicine no?
No, but my endorfines are gentically high nonetheless :-).
Excuse the pun, but no.
True.
Nah, he'll be a Blofeld stooge. Also, isn't he called 'Bruce'?
Denbigh is leading a section as "C", or the head of Center of National Security. But from a trusted source they were saying his name was Bruce. Apparently, it's Max Denbigh.
What makes you say Scott isn't Blofeld ;-).
Because Waltz is Blofeld.
Okay, Waltz is Blofeld.