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
The fact still remains, why write a film that revolves around SPECTRE, then proceed to hire a man who wins Oscars for fun, who has the requisite Germanic background, who is operating in a way that suggests he is the leader of the aforementioned organisation, only to have someone else play him? That's a woeful creative decision.
Because like with all good story thrillers the intention is to pull you and then drop a bomb shell twist on you.
Look at The Dark Knight Rises all along you think Bane is the child being referred to in the story until you find out it was the least likely Miranda.
With Waltz, like Bardem their casting came from discussions with DC at social functions, normally Tarantinos parties.. it was DC alone who brought Bardem to the table after a chat a party when Bardem told him he would love to play a Villian, apparently Waltz said the same, but from what is out there Waltz was not first choice, Gary Oldman was. If Blofeld is back, it would have to be for more than a one off film. Christoph Waltz is not a franchise actor, I do not see him doing sequels.
Then look at Andrew Scotts casting, his role has been played down. We know that EON approched him directly, no casting he was chosen. What if Scott is Oberhausers son, and his real name is Ernst and uses his mother maiden name. That Scott has managed to climb the Whitehall power list to become head of MI5 who wishes in the formation of SIS to dispose of MI6, what if Bond kill Oberhauser at the end of Spectre, and that when we see Scotts transformation from Denby to Blofeld ready to take over his fathers organisation as head od Spectre.
I have not read the script, only as someone who reads thrillers, I can see plausible twists and how I would have written it.
I'm aware of how and why 'twists' are employed, the point is that the idea of Blofeld not being who we think isn't the only feasible twist of this film, there could be many other narrative turns which haven't even been considered. In fact, I'd go as far as to say, Blofeld not being who we think would be lazy, clichéd and ultimately very disappointing.
There's also nothing to say Waltz hasn't committed himself to a two picture deal. That would be satisfactory in my eyes. If it were a choice between two films starring Waltz or four to five starring Scott, I would take Waltz every time. DC's tenure is very much its own entity and it appears SP is going to solidify that notion. There are several lines in the trailer that suggest Oberhauser has been in the background for the entirety of the Craig era, essentially he has been the unseen 'spectre' who haunts the previous three films. From that perspective you could essentially have Waltz as Blofeld and kill him off at the end of this movie. I'd prefer to have him remain at large and be bumped off in B25, but you could bump him off in SP and it be narratively satisfying.
I still believe this is not Bond on a mission as others have professed, this seems as highly personal as SF, if not more so. I don't see the next actor picking up the mantle with the same Blofeld in tow. This is uniquely Craig's era, so given we'll be lucky to get two more out of DC, I can see Waltz seeing out the Craig era if all parties are happy.
I think I read somewhere he was not playing villains anymore. Anyway it's unlikely he'll be cast as one: since the Craig era they cast non British actors as villains.
But just imagine the buzz and excitement if Scott is revealed as Blofeld. Can you? Me neither.
One of the greatest twists in cinema history... surely?
I suggested Oldman as Blofeld ages ago. They must think highly of me and my ideas.
So we got the following definite infos: Franz Oberhauser is the main villain and SPECTRE returns to the Bond movies. Furthermore we can be pretty surely assume Scott's Denbigh is not on Bond's side and the next movie concludes DCs tenure and all the loose threads.
Now they brought themselves into a situation where they have a hard time successfully fulfilling everything that their own teases promised. Revealing Waltz as Blofeld seems like the right thing to do but can't be stalled for too long for not risking a Khan situation. It still would be too obvious and therefore weak for a main plot twist. Revealing Scott as Blofeld would surely disappoint most movie goers akin to what IM3 did. Still they're are aiming at a mayor twist with Blofeld's identity since they NEED to introduce hin in a movie named SPECTRE while also keeping him for at least the next movie.
What I currently miss in this discussion is Quantum. SPECTRE actually features two organization who could still be not affiliated at all. I could actually imagine that Waltz is the true mastermind behind Quantum and is made clear early on to be distinct from Blofeld. After Quantum is gone Denbigh builds up his own organisation from their image using his vast contacts.
What they can't do is tease too much since it is far too obvious. The only option I see for them pulling the rug late in the movie is when they are revealing Blofeld who's played by an actor even more beloved than Waltz. Those are sparse and not easy to nail down for more than one movie; I could only imagine the likes of, say, Anthony Hopkins or Bruno Ganz for that specific role.
So td;ld: We either know early in the movie whether Waltz is Blofeld or Blofeld is played by an actor even more acclaimed that Waltz.
Or Oberhauser is revealed to be Blofeld at the end of the film. Think Batman Begins, the 'leaves a calling card', scenario, different narrative set up, but that's the kind of buzz you want. I think the more they make a deal out of it the more hammy and shite it will be.
Andrew Scott, cast as Denbigh because he was cheaper than Chiwetel Ejiofor. But truly cast as Blofeld not because... because on the long run he's cheaper than Waltz? Also, is nothing like Blofeld. I guess that makes the twist even more unexpected.
I wonder what people find so difficult about a Jekyll & Hyde twist. If Oberhauser IS Blofeld, it's not like anybody will blame Christoph Waltz for lying during interviews. Nobody will get disappointed. But making him a red herring has huge chances to infuriate people.
This is the crux of it.
No really? You mean people were unhappy that Ben Kingsley was not the Mandarin?
And I wonder what the defenders of the Andrew Scott or the Mark Strong thesis think the movie would gain by fooling audiences like that.
I agree, I'd really like to know too. There's been a few comments along the lines of 'we'll soon see who's right'. I'm not clairvoyant and I've no interest in being right, I just want a decent film and I feel like Scott as Blofeld is a poor idea, so I too would be keen to know what the appeal is outside of an unnecessary twist?
I am sure Scott is a decent guy, I have not seen him in many things but he seems a good enough actor, except that he is simply too young, youthful and does not have (yet) the gravitas and charisma necessary for the role.
@Murdock I like your new avatar; fits my namesake ;)
Sometimes there is a reason why it is an obvious choice: because it is the right choice.
I hope you're right :-P. It'll cause a lot of ghasping among the Bond fans when they finish the film in cinemas. ANDDD on top of that it automatically is one of the best kept secrets in Bond history :-).
Oh and it's Denbigh.
Sort of like what they did with Mathis in Casino Royale (2006) - not that I approved of that at all! Quite the opposite, in fact given his status as a trusty ally in the Fleming Bond novels.
And 'Denbigh' is Old-English for 'small fortress' or 'small fortified field'. And the French translation for that is 'Bleuchamp' :-).
I would love these kind of surprises. Moreover, like I said before, I can't see Christoph Waltz returning as Blofeld for a multi-picture deal. If they bring back Blofeld, they want to do it right, perhaps even different as opposed to the three different 'versions' of Blofeld in the novel.
And to do it that way, you need to start with a clean sheet. Similar to how Daniel Craig was casted as 007 in 2005. So a young, relatively unknown actor would be preferable. Andrew Scott is the perfect man for that job.
And the nicest thing of it all, is that the Bond producers don't have to feel this difficult pressure of constantly topping A-listed actors like Bardem and Waltz.