› › ›

No Time to Die production thread

1…196197199201202…1208

Comments

  • Tuck91Tuck91
    Posts: 1,680
    The teaser should drop in September
  • CASINOROYALECASINOROYALE Somewhere hot
    Posts: 1,003
    Bond 25 is called ShatterHand.

    Malek gets killed off, shot in the head in the middle part of the film.

    Bond realizes that he wasn’t the real guy calling the shots. Even though he is made out to be THE villain.

    We get a bald Christoph Waltz with the scar. Much more violent, scary and back for total revenge.

    Bond kills him.


    I think that would be an amazing film. Way too easy with Waltz. You don’t get the rights back to Blofeld just to have him locked in jail. Especially with the scar...

    Pretty obvious he is returning in some aspect.

    I LOVE how none of us know anything about the film. They did give us a general outline but that could mean anything. A scientist is kidnapped/missing and Malek is the villain.

    There’s gotta be a lot more to the plot then that.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    Malek has to be the lead villain-- EoN pursued him during award season and his agent(s) (as is their job), kept increasing his value with each award he won (according to my friend, the deal was agreed on, but not yet signed on Oscar weekend (so I imagine a few more $$$ were dished after his win at the Academy Awards).

    In the end, as far as I was told, Broccoli pursued the actor she wanted. A king's ransom was paid to get him-- was that for just a supporting role?

    My guess is he won't be some henchmen that will be knocked off early and Blofeld takes over (although I could be wrong). But from a film business side, if they paid what i heard they paid for Malek, he hasta be the Big Bad (with a cameo from Blofeld)... Now, whether this translates to on-screen time is a moot point... Malek has to be the catalyst to the story (his casting, no matter screen time, will drive advertising. And that means $$$ spent (on him), and $$$ made (on his casting)...
  • CASINOROYALECASINOROYALE Somewhere hot
    Posts: 1,003
    peter wrote: »
    Malek has to be the lead villain-- EoN pursued him during award season and his agent(s) (as is their job), kept increasing his value with each award he won (according to my friend, the deal was agreed on, but not yet signed on Oscar weekend (so I imagine a few more $$$ were dished after his win at the Academy Awards).

    In the end, as far as I was told, Broccoli pursued the actor she wanted. A king's ransom was paid to get him-- was that for just a supporting role?

    My guess is he won't be some henchmen that will be knocked off early and Blofeld takes over (although I could be wrong). But from a film business side, if they paid what i heard they paid for Malek, he hasta be the Big Bad (with a cameo from Blofeld)... Now, whether this translates to on-screen time is a moot point... Malek has to be the catalyst to the story (his casting, no matter screen time, will drive advertising. And that means $$$ spent (on him), and $$$ made (on his casting)...

    Right... So say Malek is in 80% of the film then. Waltz shows up around the final act for a final battle with Bond.

    Obviously getting a big name actor like Malek will draw people in, it would be a total shock though if he gets killed off randomly, then BAM Blofeld.

    Now THAT is a Bond film. I don’t want another Skyfall. CF is more than capable of pulling that twist off.

  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,218
    CASINOROYALE wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    Malek has to be the lead villain-- EoN pursued him during award season and his agent(s) (as is their job), kept increasing his value with each award he won (according to my friend, the deal was agreed on, but not yet signed on Oscar weekend (so I imagine a few more $$$ were dished after his win at the Academy Awards).

    In the end, as far as I was told, Broccoli pursued the actor she wanted. A king's ransom was paid to get him-- was that for just a supporting role?

    My guess is he won't be some henchmen that will be knocked off early and Blofeld takes over (although I could be wrong). But from a film business side, if they paid what i heard they paid for Malek, he hasta be the Big Bad (with a cameo from Blofeld)... Now, whether this translates to on-screen time is a moot point... Malek has to be the catalyst to the story (his casting, no matter screen time, will drive advertising. And that means $$$ spent (on him), and $$$ made (on his casting)...

    Right... So say Malek is in 80% of the film then. Waltz shows up around the final act for a final battle with Bond.

    Obviously getting a big name actor like Malek will draw people in, it would be a total shock though if he gets killed off randomly, then BAM Blofeld.

    Now THAT is a Bond film. I don’t want another Skyfall. CF is more than capable of pulling that twist off.

    I can't see Malek going for a character that would be undermined or cast aside so blatantly, especially considering his conditions for signing on in the first place. If it were a relatively not hot-shit actor, I might believe and support this theory as it's not bad in theory, but the guy is hot shit right now and I think they will capitalise on it rather than use him for shock factor.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    edited August 2019 Posts: 9,509
    @CASINOROYALE , I'm just piecing together from things I've been given from those close to the production, and my own "common sense" (take that for what it's worth)...

    So assuming the opposite of what I said is true: Malek is in and is killed early, Blofeld takes over as lead baddie...

    ... Then why pay Malek the King's ransom when you can get a solid character actor (who didn't just win Best Actor at the Oscar's), so you can pay Waltz to reprise his role in a larger part.

    Also, as you know from your film industry experience: Malek is gold (and expensive and expects certain roles (not minor-supporting), since his value is at its highest right now; Waltz is nowhere near as expensive as he was 5 years ago.... His slate is not nearly as full as it was five years ago, and, although respected, he would take a payday right now (albeit a respected payday), to fill a supporting role in an endeared franchise.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    .
  • FoxRoxFoxRox
    Posts: 12,475
    I’m 99% sure Malek will be the main villain presence over Waltz.
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    Posts: 5,970
    I'm hoping this is gonna be the Bond film where we still have questions after the trailer, rather than just seeing the whole thing reduced to 3 mins :)
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,306
    peter wrote: »
    @CASINOROYALE , I'm just piecing together from things I've been given from those close to the production, and my own "common sense" (take that for what it's worth)...

    So assuming the opposite of what I said is true: Malek is in and is killed early, Blofeld takes over as lead baddie...

    ... Then why pay Malek the King's ransom when you can get a solid character actor (who didn't just win Best Actor at the Oscar's), so you can pay Waltz to reprise his role in a larger part.

    Also, as you know from your film industry experience: Malek is gold (and expensive and expects certain roles (not minor-supporting), since his value is at its highest right now; Waltz is nowhere near as expensive as he was 5 years ago.... His slate is not nearly as full as it was five years ago, and, although respected, he would take a payday right now (albeit a respected payday), to fill a supporting role in an endeared franchise.

    You are undoubtedly right. Why go after Malek at the height of his career and give him a subsidiary role?

    I'd be surprised if they killed off Blofeld as Eon has never been able to do so in the past (FYEO PTS aside) and am guessing that he will be in a smaller role this time, to be saved for another Bond film.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    edited August 2019 Posts: 7,553
    echo wrote: »
    You are undoubtedly right. Why go after Malek at the height of his career and give him a subsidiary role?

    To tell a good story, and get the actor you want to tell that story.

    I don't fully understand the concept of "More Money = More Screentime". The point of film is to tell a story, and all resources should be used to that end.

  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    edited August 2019 Posts: 5,970
    It's all about getting your moneys worth, it is a business at the end of the day.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    edited August 2019 Posts: 7,553
    Denbigh wrote: »
    It's all about getting your moneys worth, it is a business at the end of the day.

    But thats what I mean, why does getting your moneys worth equate to screen time? Getting your moneys worth to me means box office return, and that depends on whether the film is good; the audience isn't clocking how many minutes Rami Malek appears in a film.

    EDIT: But your point is taken, I get it, the man's expensive so they want to use him as much as they can. I just don't agree with the concept.
  • boldfingerboldfinger
    edited August 2019 Posts: 5,767
    CASINOROYALE wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    Malek has to be the lead villain-- EoN pursued him during award season and his agent(s) (as is their job), kept increasing his value with each award he won (according to my friend, the deal was agreed on, but not yet signed on Oscar weekend (so I imagine a few more $$$ were dished after his win at the Academy Awards).

    In the end, as far as I was told, Broccoli pursued the actor she wanted. A king's ransom was paid to get him-- was that for just a supporting role?

    My guess is he won't be some henchmen that will be knocked off early and Blofeld takes over (although I could be wrong). But from a film business side, if they paid what i heard they paid for Malek, he hasta be the Big Bad (with a cameo from Blofeld)... Now, whether this translates to on-screen time is a moot point... Malek has to be the catalyst to the story (his casting, no matter screen time, will drive advertising. And that means $$$ spent (on him), and $$$ made (on his casting)...

    Right... So say Malek is in 80% of the film then. Waltz shows up around the final act for a final battle with Bond.

    Obviously getting a big name actor like Malek will draw people in, it would be a total shock though if he gets killed off randomly, then BAM Blofeld.

    Now THAT is a Bond film. I don’t want another Skyfall. CF is more than capable of pulling that twist off.
    If Blofeld is in the movie but only for a short time, CF Needs a really tight groove if he wants to correct the Image People got from SP. Not saying I don´t trust in CF, he´s probably able to make something extraordinary out of it. I want Waltz to steal the Show this time, no matter how Long he´s in the film.

  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    edited August 2019 Posts: 4,343
    SP Blofeld doesn't need any correction IMO but seeing him again, especially in a couple of brief creepy scenes, would be very welcome. Given the kind of envious, vouyeristic and arrogant type of character they presented in SP his demise was perfect. For a character like him rotting in a super security prison for the rest of his life while wondering how many "interchangeable" women Bond is goin to bed is a way worse perspective than just dying. Plus, I believe his role in 25 will be just a kind of tool for informations establishing Madeleine connection with the main villain, Malek.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    NickTwentyTwo wrote: »
    echo wrote: »
    You are undoubtedly right. Why go after Malek at the height of his career and give him a subsidiary role?

    To tell a good story, and get the actor you want to tell that story.

    I don't fully understand the concept of "More Money = More Screentime". The point of film is to tell a story, and all resources should be used to that end.

    You’re correct and I think I said somewhere that this is not necessarily about screentime, but, instead, the story will hinge on Malek’s character. He is, I’m assuming, the Big Baddie and is the “Inciting Incident”, the catalyst of the story.

    I was merely saying that I’d be surprised if Blofeld was the lead villain, and not Malek’s character (especially because of where Malek is in his career, and how expensive he is; also it’d be strange for him to accept a second fiddle bag guy role).
  • Pierce2DanielPierce2Daniel
    Posts: 4,409
    peter wrote: »
    NickTwentyTwo wrote: »
    echo wrote: »
    You are undoubtedly right. Why go after Malek at the height of his career and give him a subsidiary role?

    To tell a good story, and get the actor you want to tell that story.

    I don't fully understand the concept of "More Money = More Screentime". The point of film is to tell a story, and all resources should be used to that end.

    You’re correct and I think I said somewhere that this is not necessarily about screentime, but, instead, the story will hinge on Malek’s character. He is, I’m assuming, the Big Baddie and is the “Inciting Incident”, the catalyst of the story.

    I was merely saying that I’d be surprised if Blofeld was the lead villain, and not Malek’s character (especially because of where Malek is in his career, and how expensive he is; also it’d be strange for him to accept a second fiddle bag guy role).

    Precisely.

    The impression a villain leaves is the true test. You don’t need a huge amount of screentime. In fact, Javier Bardem arrives into SF around 70-80 minutes into the film and has a maximum of 20 mins screentime. But he makes each moment count and steals the show.

    Dr No turns up in the film named after him around 90 mins in with only 20 mins of film left.

    Bond villains are glorified supporting characters. But….if done well, they can linger in the memory and really hold our attention and capture our imagination.

    Malek is having a huge moment in his career currently and getting him as the villain is a huge win for Eon and Fukunaga. If it wasn’t for Fukunaga’s involvement, I don’t think they’d have got him.

    But his casting makes worlds of sense. When I first heard his name, I was struck with how genius the suggestion was. I was almost angry I didn’t think it up, as he’s perfect for the role.

    He's back in NYC filming Mr Robot currently, looking more like Bond than the villain
  • JamesCraigJamesCraig Ancient Rome
    Posts: 3,497
    CASINOROYALE wrote: »
    Bond 25 is called ShatterHand.

    Malek gets killed off, shot in the head in the middle part of the film.

    Bond realizes that he wasn’t the real guy calling the shots. Even though he is made out to be THE villain.

    We get a bald Christoph Waltz with the scar. Much more violent, scary and back for total revenge.

    Bond kills him.


    I think that would be an amazing film. Way too easy with Waltz. You don’t get the rights back to Blofeld just to have him locked in jail. Especially with the scar...

    Pretty obvious he is returning in some aspect.

    I LOVE how none of us know anything about the film. They did give us a general outline but that could mean anything. A scientist is kidnapped/missing and Malek is the villain.

    There’s gotta be a lot more to the plot then that.

    We gotta know the actual plot first.
  • barryt007barryt007
    Posts: 19,339
    Pierce2Daniel wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    NickTwentyTwo wrote: »
    echo wrote: »
    You are undoubtedly right. Why go after Malek at the height of his career and give him a subsidiary role?

    To tell a good story, and get the actor you want to tell that story.

    I don't fully understand the concept of "More Money = More Screentime". The point of film is to tell a story, and all resources should be used to that end.

    You’re correct and I think I said somewhere that this is not necessarily about screentime, but, instead, the story will hinge on Malek’s character. He is, I’m assuming, the Big Baddie and is the “Inciting Incident”, the catalyst of the story.

    I was merely saying that I’d be surprised if Blofeld was the lead villain, and not Malek’s character (especially because of where Malek is in his career, and how expensive he is; also it’d be strange for him to accept a second fiddle bag guy role).

    Precisely.

    The impression a villain leaves is the true test. You don’t need a huge amount of screentime. In fact, Javier Bardem arrives into SF around 70-80 minutes into the film and has a maximum of 20 mins screentime. But he makes each moment count and steals the show.

    Dr No turns up in the film named after him around 90 mins in with only 20 mins of film left.

    Bond villains are glorified supporting characters. But….if done well, they can linger in the memory and really hold our attention and capture our imagination.

    Malek is having a huge moment in his career currently and getting him as the villain is a huge win for Eon and Fukunaga. If it wasn’t for Fukunaga’s involvement, I don’t think they’d have got him.

    But his casting makes worlds of sense. When I first heard his name, I was struck with how genius the suggestion was. I was almost angry I didn’t think it up, as he’s perfect for the role.

    He's back in NYC filming Mr Robot currently    , looking more like Bond than the villain

    I wonder how much screen time he gets then,if he has time to do this...maybe 50/50 with Waltz.
  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 15,127
    TripAces wrote: »
    00Agent wrote: »
    Bounine wrote: »
    'We're seeing a real evolution of his character. He's now having equal relationships with the female characters and he's emotionally attached, making real connections. There's real respect for the women in his life." (Naomi Harris)

    Thoughts?

    Waller Bridge said that Bond's character hadn't changed...

    God bless Naomi, but maybe she was trying a bit too hard with the press to sell them the idea of 'this is totally new', which is just a new spin on 'my Bond girl is totally different from the previous ones'.
    Bond had equal relationships with women since the dawn of time (he's not oppressing anybody lol). And he did make emotional connections, mainly in OHMSS and CR, which was the whole point of these movies from a character standpoint. At best we'll get something similar again, but maybe this time the woman will not get killed, or try to kill him/herself, in which case this would be kinda 'new'.

    As i said before, let him get married at the end, i'm ok with that. As this is a final film there should be some finality to it, just not death.
    All this can be achived without watering down Bond's casual chauvinism and general badassery, so nobody needs to get their panties in a bunch.

    As I have said before: Bond's relationship with women, from Dr. No to SP, has been mischaracterized. Rarely has Bond mistreated a woman who was NOT an operative.
    And even then he rarely kills them directly. Fiona Volpe, Rosie Carver, Xenia Onatopp, etc. Heck, I can only think of Elektra King who was directly killed by Bond.
  • JamesCraigJamesCraig Ancient Rome
    Posts: 3,497
    Ludovico wrote: »
    TripAces wrote: »
    00Agent wrote: »
    Bounine wrote: »
    'We're seeing a real evolution of his character. He's now having equal relationships with the female characters and he's emotionally attached, making real connections. There's real respect for the women in his life." (Naomi Harris)

    Thoughts?

    Waller Bridge said that Bond's character hadn't changed...

    God bless Naomi, but maybe she was trying a bit too hard with the press to sell them the idea of 'this is totally new', which is just a new spin on 'my Bond girl is totally different from the previous ones'.
    Bond had equal relationships with women since the dawn of time (he's not oppressing anybody lol). And he did make emotional connections, mainly in OHMSS and CR, which was the whole point of these movies from a character standpoint. At best we'll get something similar again, but maybe this time the woman will not get killed, or try to kill him/herself, in which case this would be kinda 'new'.

    As i said before, let him get married at the end, i'm ok with that. As this is a final film there should be some finality to it, just not death.
    All this can be achived without watering down Bond's casual chauvinism and general badassery, so nobody needs to get their panties in a bunch.

    As I have said before: Bond's relationship with women, from Dr. No to SP, has been mischaracterized. Rarely has Bond mistreated a woman who was NOT an operative.
    And even then he rarely kills them directly. Fiona Volpe, Rosie Carver, Xenia Onatopp, etc. Heck, I can only think of Elektra King who was directly killed by Bond.

    He never misses. ;)
  • Pierce2DanielPierce2Daniel
    edited August 2019 Posts: 4,409
    barryt007 wrote: »
    Pierce2Daniel wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    NickTwentyTwo wrote: »
    echo wrote: »
    You are undoubtedly right. Why go after Malek at the height of his career and give him a subsidiary role?

    To tell a good story, and get the actor you want to tell that story.

    I don't fully understand the concept of "More Money = More Screentime". The point of film is to tell a story, and all resources should be used to that end.

    You’re correct and I think I said somewhere that this is not necessarily about screentime, but, instead, the story will hinge on Malek’s character. He is, I’m assuming, the Big Baddie and is the “Inciting Incident”, the catalyst of the story.

    I was merely saying that I’d be surprised if Blofeld was the lead villain, and not Malek’s character (especially because of where Malek is in his career, and how expensive he is; also it’d be strange for him to accept a second fiddle bag guy role).

    Precisely.

    The impression a villain leaves is the true test. You don’t need a huge amount of screentime. In fact, Javier Bardem arrives into SF around 70-80 minutes into the film and has a maximum of 20 mins screentime. But he makes each moment count and steals the show.

    Dr No turns up in the film named after him around 90 mins in with only 20 mins of film left.

    Bond villains are glorified supporting characters. But….if done well, they can linger in the memory and really hold our attention and capture our imagination.

    Malek is having a huge moment in his career currently and getting him as the villain is a huge win for Eon and Fukunaga. If it wasn’t for Fukunaga’s involvement, I don’t think they’d have got him.

    But his casting makes worlds of sense. When I first heard his name, I was struck with how genius the suggestion was. I was almost angry I didn’t think it up, as he’s perfect for the role.

    He's back in NYC filming Mr Robot currently    , looking more like Bond than the villain

    I wonder how much screen time he gets then,if he has time to do this...maybe 50/50 with Waltz.

    Incorrect.

    Waltz is cameoing in the film. His role will be comparable to Mr White in Spectre.

    Bond and Madeleine need to meet with Blofeld as he holds a vital clue. waltz has one significant scene which will be reminiscent of Hannibal Lector in Silence of the Lambs and Alice Morgan in the second series of Luther. I.e ; he's in prison taunting the heroes for coming to him with their tales between their legs for intel.

    anigif_original-grid-image-4888-1427503641-18.gif?crop=524:347;50,0

    I think Blofeld's escape will be saved for a later film - where we will get a new Bond and perhaps a new Blofeld.

    Rami is the lead villain.
  • Risico007Risico007
    Posts: 9,848
    FoxRox wrote: »
    I’d love a first trailer soon, but I’d much rather get a title. I’m getting tired of calling it Bond 25.

    Agreed
  • barryt007barryt007
    Posts: 19,339
    Pierce2Daniel wrote: »
    barryt007 wrote: »
    Pierce2Daniel wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    NickTwentyTwo wrote: »
    echo wrote: »
    You are undoubtedly right. Why go after Malek at the height of his career and give him a subsidiary role?

    To tell a good story, and get the actor you want to tell that story.

    I don't fully understand the concept of "More Money = More Screentime". The point of film is to tell a story, and all resources should be used to that end.

    You’re correct and I think I said somewhere that this is not necessarily about screentime, but, instead, the story will hinge on Malek’s character. He is, I’m assuming, the Big Baddie and is the “Inciting Incident”, the catalyst of the story.

    I was merely saying that I’d be surprised if Blofeld was the lead villain, and not Malek’s character (especially because of where Malek is in his career, and how expensive he is; also it’d be strange for him to accept a second fiddle bag guy role).

    Precisely.

    The impression a villain leaves is the true test. You don’t need a huge amount of screentime. In fact, Javier Bardem arrives into SF around 70-80 minutes into the film and has a maximum of 20 mins screentime. But he makes each moment count and steals the show.

    Dr No turns up in the film named after him around 90 mins in with only 20 mins of film left.

    Bond villains are glorified supporting characters. But….if done well, they can linger in the memory and really hold our attention and capture our imagination.

    Malek is having a huge moment in his career currently and getting him as the villain is a huge win for Eon and Fukunaga. If it wasn’t for Fukunaga’s involvement, I don’t think they’d have got him.

    But his casting makes worlds of sense. When I first heard his name, I was struck with how genius the suggestion was. I was almost angry I didn’t think it up, as he’s perfect for the role.

    He's back in NYC filming Mr Robot currently    , looking more like Bond than the villain

    I wonder how much screen time he gets then,if he has time to do this...maybe 50/50 with Waltz.

    Incorrect.

    Waltz is cameoing in the film. His role will be comparable to Mr White in Spectre.

    Bond and Madeleine need to meet with Blofeld as he holds a vital clue. waltz has one significant scene which will be reminiscent of Hannibal Lector in Silence of the Lambs and Alice Morgan in the second series of Luther. I.e ; he's in prison taunting the heroes for coming to him with their tales between their legs for intel.

    anigif_original-grid-image-4888-1427503641-18.gif?crop=524:347;50,0

    I think Blofeld's escape will be saved for a later film - where we will get a new Bond and perhaps a new Blofeld.

    Rami is the lead villain.

    Good...that's what im hoping for.
  • Tounet77Tounet77
    Posts: 68
    Wouldn't it be time to create a Bond 25 Pictures Thread to collect all pictures released so far and facilitate access to them ?
  • Pierce2DanielPierce2Daniel
    Posts: 4,409
    Tounet77 wrote: »
    Wouldn't it be time to create a Bond 25 Pictures Thread to collect all pictures released so far and facilitate access to them ?

    Go for it. it's better to ask for forgiveness than permission.
  • barryt007barryt007
    Posts: 19,339
    Pierce2Daniel wrote: »
    Tounet77 wrote: »
    Wouldn't it be time to create a Bond 25 Pictures Thread to collect all pictures released so far and facilitate access to them ?

    Go for it. it's better to ask for forgiveness than permission.

    And its better to burn out,than to fade away !! ;)
    (Copyright : The Kraken,Highlander)
  • ZekidkZekidk
    edited August 2019 Posts: 3,276
    barryt007 wrote: »
    I wonder how much screen time he gets then,if he has time to do this...maybe 50/50 with Waltz.
    All we know is, that he has been in London shooting B25 for 1-2 weeks at Pinewood, and that he has a tight schedule. Usually there's a lot of waiting around and practicing (even for Craig), but if their shooting schedule has been planned to fit tightly with Malek's, it could be many scenes. And let's not forget that one of the huge action setpieces - "Cuba" - was in fact shot at the Pinewood backlot around the same time, so he can be in both interior and exterior scenes. With green screen they can even make him show up in Jamaica, Italy and Scotland ;-)
  • WalecsWalecs On Her Majesty's Secret Service
    Posts: 3,157
    Pierce2Daniel wrote: »
    barryt007 wrote: »
    Pierce2Daniel wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    NickTwentyTwo wrote: »
    echo wrote: »
    You are undoubtedly right. Why go after Malek at the height of his career and give him a subsidiary role?

    To tell a good story, and get the actor you want to tell that story.

    I don't fully understand the concept of "More Money = More Screentime". The point of film is to tell a story, and all resources should be used to that end.

    You’re correct and I think I said somewhere that this is not necessarily about screentime, but, instead, the story will hinge on Malek’s character. He is, I’m assuming, the Big Baddie and is the “Inciting Incident”, the catalyst of the story.

    I was merely saying that I’d be surprised if Blofeld was the lead villain, and not Malek’s character (especially because of where Malek is in his career, and how expensive he is; also it’d be strange for him to accept a second fiddle bag guy role).

    Precisely.

    The impression a villain leaves is the true test. You don’t need a huge amount of screentime. In fact, Javier Bardem arrives into SF around 70-80 minutes into the film and has a maximum of 20 mins screentime. But he makes each moment count and steals the show.

    Dr No turns up in the film named after him around 90 mins in with only 20 mins of film left.

    Bond villains are glorified supporting characters. But….if done well, they can linger in the memory and really hold our attention and capture our imagination.

    Malek is having a huge moment in his career currently and getting him as the villain is a huge win for Eon and Fukunaga. If it wasn’t for Fukunaga’s involvement, I don’t think they’d have got him.

    But his casting makes worlds of sense. When I first heard his name, I was struck with how genius the suggestion was. I was almost angry I didn’t think it up, as he’s perfect for the role.

    He's back in NYC filming Mr Robot currently    , looking more like Bond than the villain

    I wonder how much screen time he gets then,if he has time to do this...maybe 50/50 with Waltz.

    Incorrect.

    Waltz is cameoing in the film. His role will be comparable to Mr White in Spectre.

    Bond and Madeleine need to meet with Blofeld as he holds a vital clue. waltz has one significant scene which will be reminiscent of Hannibal Lector in Silence of the Lambs and Alice Morgan in the second series of Luther. I.e ; he's in prison taunting the heroes for coming to him with their tales between their legs for intel.

    anigif_original-grid-image-4888-1427503641-18.gif?crop=524:347;50,0

    I think Blofeld's escape will be saved for a later film - where we will get a new Bond and perhaps a new Blofeld.

    Rami is the lead villain.

    I think you're most likely right, but how can you say another user is incorrect if we haven't seen the movie yet?
  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 15,127
    Pierce2Daniel wrote: »
    barryt007 wrote: »
    Pierce2Daniel wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    NickTwentyTwo wrote: »
    echo wrote: »
    You are undoubtedly right. Why go after Malek at the height of his career and give him a subsidiary role?

    To tell a good story, and get the actor you want to tell that story.

    I don't fully understand the concept of "More Money = More Screentime". The point of film is to tell a story, and all resources should be used to that end.

    You’re correct and I think I said somewhere that this is not necessarily about screentime, but, instead, the story will hinge on Malek’s character. He is, I’m assuming, the Big Baddie and is the “Inciting Incident”, the catalyst of the story.

    I was merely saying that I’d be surprised if Blofeld was the lead villain, and not Malek’s character (especially because of where Malek is in his career, and how expensive he is; also it’d be strange for him to accept a second fiddle bag guy role).

    Precisely.

    The impression a villain leaves is the true test. You don’t need a huge amount of screentime. In fact, Javier Bardem arrives into SF around 70-80 minutes into the film and has a maximum of 20 mins screentime. But he makes each moment count and steals the show.

    Dr No turns up in the film named after him around 90 mins in with only 20 mins of film left.

    Bond villains are glorified supporting characters. But….if done well, they can linger in the memory and really hold our attention and capture our imagination.

    Malek is having a huge moment in his career currently and getting him as the villain is a huge win for Eon and Fukunaga. If it wasn’t for Fukunaga’s involvement, I don’t think they’d have got him.

    But his casting makes worlds of sense. When I first heard his name, I was struck with how genius the suggestion was. I was almost angry I didn’t think it up, as he’s perfect for the role.

    He's back in NYC filming Mr Robot currently    , looking more like Bond than the villain

    I wonder how much screen time he gets then,if he has time to do this...maybe 50/50 with Waltz.

    Incorrect.

    Waltz is cameoing in the film. His role will be comparable to Mr White in Spectre.

    Bond and Madeleine need to meet with Blofeld as he holds a vital clue. waltz has one significant scene which will be reminiscent of Hannibal Lector in Silence of the Lambs and Alice Morgan in the second series of Luther. I.e ; he's in prison taunting the heroes for coming to him with their tales between their legs for intel.

    anigif_original-grid-image-4888-1427503641-18.gif?crop=524:347;50,0

    I think Blofeld's escape will be saved for a later film - where we will get a new Bond and perhaps a new Blofeld.

    Rami is the lead villain.

    Could Blofeld pull a Hannibal Lecter? Malek is the main antagonist but Blofeld escapes?
Sign In or Register to comment.