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
Everything points to him being Blofeld, which I think is fine. The narrative twist can take a different form, having Waltz not be Blofeld just seems like a really obvious Hollywood twist that will be nothing but lacklustre. The intrigue can stem from finding out how he is Blofeld.
One word:-
Sherlock.
I've still yet to here a logical argument for why Waltz isn't/shouldn't be Blofeld. Because it would facilitate a 'twist' (and an obvious one) isn't a solid enough argument for me.
I am still not convinced that EON Productions/Sony Pictures/MGM would give away so incredibly much, by revealing S.P.E.C.T.R.E. anddd Ernst Stavro Blofeld in just one Bond film. It's too simple. Therefore, I'm also not convinced (just yet) that Christoph Waltz will play Blofeld.
First of all, there are some plain logical casting reasons to think off when strengthening my theory that Waltz isn't Blofeld: Schedule conflicts over a course of several Bond films. Obviously, re-introducing Blofeld would mean that a recurring character is back. And given the expensive A-List status of actor Christoph Waltz, I can't believe that he will be lured into the franchise for a multi-picture deal. I think it wouldn't be exactly appealing either for him.
Also, don't forget that Daniel Craig at the start of his tenure wasn't a famous actor. When it comes to the leading character, James Bond, EON Productions is always opting for very good actors, just not already firmly established famous ones. It was the case with Connery, Lazenby, Dalton, Brosnan and...Craig. Perhaps only Roger Moore was more famous when he became James Bond-007.
We know James Bond-007 is a pivotal recurring character. But so is Ernst Stavro Blofeld. He's the arch-antagonist of Bond, heading some kind of anti-MI6 that's operating in the shadows, creating havoc between countries. Now I believe EON Productions this time around want to do the casting right, as opposed to the 1960's and 1970's when so many actors played the role, basically violating the continuity of the franchise during its first decade of existence. To do that you need to have a relatively young actor who isn't A-listed; an actor who isn't well-established in Hollywood just yet.
Thirdly, I don't believe that, like with Star Trek and Khan, Franz Oberhauser is simply a fake name. There's an historical connection to the name Oberhauser from the novels and I don't see how a man who's grounded in so much personal background history with the Bond family simply.....changes his name into....Ernst Stavro Blofeld. Making the name 'Oberhauser' a mere throw-away name. I call that, indeed, a slightly lame name change.
One could do this much smarter. Just look at the Bond film "On Her Majesty's Secret Service". In that film Blofeld started to become a true snob, by trying to adopt a new name and let his title of 'count' being recognized by the London College Of Arms: Comte Balthazar de Bleuchamp.
Similarly, I wouldn't be too much surprised that such a better explained name change will be executed in the upcoming Bond-film "SPECTRE". May I remind everyone that the Old-English word 'denbigh' is closer related to the French form 'bleuchamp'? It basically means 'small fortress or small fortified field'.
And lastly, may I remind everyone that in the history of the Bond films the first head of S.P.E.C.T.R.E. wasn't Blofeld....but Doctor Julius No, played by Joseph Wiseman, wearing a white nehru jacket? He was the first No# 1 of the crime syndicate. We know he got killed near the end of the film "Doctor No". And then in the film "From Russia With Love" a new shady No# 1 is being introduced. He, and his henchmen are openly talking about avenging the death of his predecessor, Dr. No. Later in the end title credits we know the man is named "Blofeld", but we don't know who's playing the man, merely using a "?" in the field of the actor's name.
SO MY THEORY IS THIS REALLY:
Christoph Waltz is indeed playing the head, the No# 1, of crime syndicate S.P.E.C.T.R.E. (SPecial Executive for Counter-intelligence, Terrorism, Revenge & Extortion). He's named Franz Oberhauser and he has a firm personal/historical connection with the Bond family. BUT he stays Franz Oberhauser and will perhaps be killed near the end of the film. Which was also the case with Doctor Julius No.
British actor Andrew Scott plays Max Denbigh. Denbigh is a devoted member of S.P.E.C.T.R.E, who is not the No# 1 head of the syndicate.....just...not yet. When Oberhauser gets killed at the end of the film (he even gets injured before that, hence the CGI-markers on Waltz' face that were used on set), Max Denbigh gets away. He flees and at the very end of "SPECTRE" we get to know that Max Denbigh IS Ernst Stavro Blofeld. Or, his name won't be revealed just yet in this film, but will be revealed in the 25th Bond film when Andrew Scott returns. This time as Blofeld.
Many Bond fans declared me crazy for this theory. But for me personally Christoph Waltz being revealed as Blofeld in just one Bond film is too lame.....way too simple really. James Bond is not Star Trek. EON Productions must have discussed this in great detail, as opposed to the rather lame approach executed by J.J Abrahms in Star Trek.
And on top of that, when Waltz is simply revealed as Blofeld, how on Earth could future Bond films made believable and realistic?? It would mean that Bond film after Bond film agent 007 is going to fight the same childhood friend. It's not going to happen. So, Christoph Waltz is Franz Oberhauser. And Andrew Scott is Ernst Stavro Blofeld.
And as @Ludovico has said many times.
"You don't cast Waltz in a movie to have your main villain be Andrew Scott."
Yeah, but what do you believe? Your post confuses me. You say that from that survey Waltz would not play Blofeld?
And then someone says Waltz IS Blofeld. What do you believe?
Please read my entire story. I tried to give good arguments for my theory. I actually said that Waltz WILL be the main villain in "SPECTRE". He's just not Blofeld :-)! I really believe Andrew Scott in the end will be Blofeld.
Also, what makes you think Oberhauser will change his name? What if he was always Blofeld?
Waltz is going to be Blofeld. He looks the closest to the OHMSS novel appearance of Blofeld. Scott doesn't look intimidating enough to be head of SPECTRE. He's about as menacing looking as Dominic Greene.
He's also widely known for playing Moriarty. Hardly original making him Bond's arch-nemesis.
It would be kinda funny if Denbigh ended up being a good guy where Cumberbatch who plays Sherlock, became the evil Khan. :))
I don't believe Julius No was SPECTRE #1 before E. S. Blofeld, high up yes, but not at the very top, he's described as "Our operative, Dr. No" at the SPECTRE meeting on the ship in From Russia With Love.
The nehru jacket isn't a representation of leadership. If you remember in the FRWL and Thunderball films, he wore a black suit, it wasn't until Pleasence interpretation in You Only Live Twice did E.S.B become connected to said outfit.
Julius No wore the outfit because of his Chinese mother and his relationship with the Tongs.
Christoph Waltz would have no trouble coming back for sequels, if he's contracted early enough. The producers only have to say "We are looking at these dates roughly, is there a problem?" He's thoroughly enjoyed production on SPECTRE, and if he's needed, the James Bond films are so high quality that he could rework other commitments around it. He doesn't even have to be a big part, say next film he's in an M type role - seen at a SPECTRE meeting, heading proceedings with a big showdown in the third appearance - meaning he wouldn't need too much time to film.
I'm just not sold on the idea of Waltz playing Blofeld. It's too damn obvious. I firmly believe we might be in for a big surprise at the end of the film.....
No maybe about it. Doctor No was never head of SPECTRE and neither was Largo.
You could alternatively say it would be 'obvious' if he's not Blofeld.
The key here is how not if, IMO.
Ooowh yes, just not in the way that everyone right now seem to believe. I would have given Waltz a very tiny almost cameo-like role in "SPECTRE", similar to Anthony Dawson in FRWL. And then in the next 25th film he has the lead villain role as Blofeld.
For me, at this stage, it's all......too obvious that he has:
A) The lead villain role in this film
B) Will be revealed as Blofeld in the same film
C) Has firm childhood ties with the Bond family, and
D) Is the head of SPECTRE.
All in one film. Too 'straight in your face', too simple and too obvious for me. I truly believe we're in for a shocker.
By the way, if Waltz is Blofeld or not: We don't know it yet at this stage. I could be wrong, but so can the other people in here who think Waltz IS Blofeld.
And I do think my arguments are valid enough not to discount.
Well, look at some other arguments I made. I'm just not sure Christoph Waltz would stick himself to a multi-picture deal. Playing Blofeld several times. I think EON were looking for a relatively young, unknown actor for Blofeld. To make him the real good anti-Bond. Introduce him properly. Let the character develop over the course of several films.
And if, at this stage, you are already certain that Blofeld comes back, you also need to have some practical certainty. You need to have an actor who's willing to commit himself for more films. Otherwise we get the same problem again: Blofeld played by various characters.
By the way, Dr No says: "I'm a member of S.P.E.C.T.R.E." But since when are members never the No# 1 of a syndicate? You can not know that for sure either. For me it seems logical that a No# 1 of S.P.E.C.T.R.E. needs to be chosen, perhaps elected, thus being a member of the organisation foremost.
Blofeld runs SPECTRE in the novels and films. Operatives are interchangeable. He is always no.1. Doctor No was never head of SPECTRE.
In the books, his appearance changed drastically when Bond met him again each time, but as I said, I am certain Waltz would be happy to commit himself to more films, like Fiennes did as M.
I know he's a member of SPECTRE, but he was an operative, not #1 as confirmed in From Russia with Love.
The line goes "As an added refinement, I think that SPECTRE would probably have the chance of a personal revenge for the killing of our operative, Dr. No, because the man the British would almost certainly use on a mission of this sort would be their agent, James Bond".
They wouldn't refer to the old head of SPECTRE, the previous #1 as "Our operative".
Yeah, but for some reason they made the cinematic Dr No a member of S.P.E.C.T.R.E. whereas in the book he's merely an ex-member of the Chinese Tong. The cinematic Bond has been different on a few occassions as compared to the Bond from the novels.
By the way, in all honestly, I always assumed that the cinematic Dr No was the head of S.P.E.C.T.R.E. Until today when I read that others think differently. Now I think about it, only FRWL gives us more explanation as what his role was. Yes, that of an "operative". Still, Blofeld in a way could be seen as the CO, chief operative, of S.P.E.C.T.R.E.
Anyway, this discussion is besides the real point. Some think Christoph Waltz will play Blofeld. I think the cinematic Blofeld will be played by Andrew Scott. And I think Oberhauser, without name changes, being the first head of S.P.E.C.T.R.E. in "SPECTRE" could be a perfect way of slowly introduce us to the later head, Blofeld.
The one constant in the novels and films is that Blofeld is head of SPECTRE. Waiting decades to use them both only to have Blofeld graduate to leader following the death of Oberhauser seems odd. A bland twist.
I don't agree. I think it could be quite a formidable introduction to the character.
By the way....do you think Christoph Waltz will return in upcoming Bond films?
I think it would an almighty damp squib. Once your 'amazing twist' plays out, you're left with Moriarty as your recurring Uber villain. I don't see it. Craig has one, maybe two films left. I love Andrew Scott, but the thought of Waltz returning to face off with Craig and seeing out his tenure is mouthwatering.
We'll find out....November 6th.......who will be right ;-).
And let's not forget that, even as a pseudonym, Denbigh is not exactly a menacing one. "M, this is 007. We have been played fools. It was not Oberhauser our enemy, it was Denbigh, Denbigh, the cause of all our pain is Denbiiighhhh!"
It would not work. As @Murdock said, Andrew Scott is not intimidating enough. Opposed to Craig, he looks very lightweight. I don't believe for a second Scott/Denbigh could strike fear in the eyes of Mr White or make Hinx an obedient dog. Sure, Scott as Moriarty can scare a Watson who looks like Martin Freeman. And he can play the villain well, adequately, I may say. But he's no Christoph Waltz.
And why would Blofeld take the identity and impersonate a British civil servant? How would he be able to do this? Why?
@Gustav_Graves, I like you, but your "theory" is at best far fetched (not to mention that you had to completely rewrite the character of Dr No to make him fit your theory, because no, he never was the head of SPECTRE). It would be a twist's for twist's sake and pretty much meaningless. They did it with Iron Man 3 and it disappointed both fans and non fans. It would not only be a miscast, but basically tagging the name Blofeld to an actor who simply cannot play the character as originally envisioned by Fleming. Neither would it be consistent with the early movies. Sometimes, the simplest explanation is actually the right one. So far, everything indicates that Waltz is Blofeld. He is the most likely candidate. Scott, on the other hand, might play a traitor, but he is the least likely candidate to play Blofeld.
For me, we are going to have a Jekyll & Hyde or Dracula twist. I hate to spoil it for people who haven,t read them, but here it is: Jekyll and Hyde are one and the same person and why Count Dracula is acting so strangely when you see him is because he is truly a vampire.
'I'm the author of all your pain'. In steps Denbigh, 'Not really, it was me'.