SPECTRE: So who's going to play Ernst?

JimThompson45

bgh1968 wrote:

The reason I like the cat is that ...blofeld is doing something sweet,whilst doing vile and horrible things...if shot well I think that would be creepy

In the books, Blofeld started as a character who was competent and ruthless, and over the course of time (and defeats) became progressively creepy and obsessed. I think that could work over the course of several movies, too.

thelivingroyale

bgh1968 wrote:

I would love to see him unseen again...just a voice stroking a cat.

Kill Bill and now Sherlock Holmes have done that recently (villians face not seen, just a voice). Chances they got the idea from the early Connery films (especially true with Kill Bill since Tarantino is a fan), but still.

sirseanisbond

Replace the cat with a white tiger? Anyone? I think that would be an appropriate way of keeping the cat but changing it and making it better. Bond could get chased by it through the jungle outside Blofeld’s secret lair. I think that would be awesome!

JimThompson45

sirseanisbond wrote:

Replace the cat with a white tiger? Anyone? I think that would be an appropriate way of keeping the cat but changing it and making it better. Bond could get chased by it through the jungle outside Blofeld’s secret lair. I think that would be awesome!

John Gardner actually had his Blofeld use a man-eating snake -- which could be made to work, I suppose.

JimThompson45

Here's a villain I wouldn't mind seeing brought to the big screen: Brokenclaw Lee. :\">

Murdock

I wouldn't mind a re-imagining of Blofeld but I'd rather he had a different name. As Silva is sort of a re-imagined Scaramanga from the Novel.

JimThompson45

Murdock wrote:

I wouldn't mind a re-imagining of Blofeld but I'd rather he had a different name. As Silva is sort of a re-imagined Scaramanga from the Novel.

Silva strikes me as being quite a bit different than Scaramanga -- and that's coming from a fellow who really enjoys Scaramanga's character.

Murdock

JimThompson45 wrote:

Murdock wrote:

I wouldn't mind a re-imagining of Blofeld but I'd rather he had a different name. As Silva is sort of a re-imagined Scaramanga from the Novel.

Silva strikes me as being quite a bit different than Scaramanga -- and that's coming from a fellow who really enjoys Scaramanga's character.

Hence the "sort of". But the Dueling pistols and the way he kills Severine screams twisted Scaramanga to me and it's quite similar to Andrea Anders's Death.

Blofeld with a white tiger sounds awesome, along with the "Garden of Death" could work out excellent if it was maze of dangerous plants with Bond trying to escape while also avoiding the tiger.

and if he looked like at least one of these, I'd be happy.

Manuel

Any well written villain is great. But Blofeld... he is not only a villain. He is Holmes' Moriarty, Tom Sawyer's Indian Joe, Van Helsing's Dracula. Blofeld is an archenemy and a strong link to classic Bond. Surely a post cold war era wouldn't fit in our days (he would be too old), but in the 007 Universe, one view to the world's present international news and everything can be possible. Blofeld's precense in novels and movies was always equal to death sentence to the world. In the movies, the idea of this faceless man with a cat that everyone talked about, and was afraid of, built a legend around him hard to forget. It is obvious Ian Fleming gave the morbid honor of killing Tracy Bond only to whom he considered equal to Bond––– and for that, we know 007 will chase Ernest Stavro Blofeld all the way to hell, for Queen, for world's peace... but with the Beretta at hand, for a personal matter.

JimThompson45

Manuel wrote:

Any well written villain is great. But Blofeld... he is not only a villain. He is Holmes' Moriarty, Tom Sawyer's Indian Joe, Van Helsing's Dracula. Blofeld is an archenemy and a strong link to classic Bond. Surely a post cold war era wouldn't fit in our days (he would be too old), but in the 007 Universe, one view to the world's present international news and everything can be possible. Blofeld's precense in novels and movies was always equal to death sentence to the world. In the movies, the idea of this faceless man with a cat that everyone talked about, and was afraid of, built a legend around him hard to forget. It is obvious Ian Fleming gave the morbid honor of killing Tracy Bond only to whom he considered equal to Bond––– and for that, we know 007 will chase Ernest Stavro Blofeld all the way to hell, for Queen, for world's peace... but with the Beretta at hand, for a personal matter.

Very much agreed. Blofeld is Bond's Moriarty in so many ways. Eventually, he ought to be re-introduced into the movies.

thelivingroyale

People keep saying he's a relic but if they hadn't lost the rights I think he'd have been in a few films over the years. I don't think they'd have ever got rid of him.

JimThompson45

thelivingroyale wrote:

People keep saying he's a relic but if they hadn't lost the rights I think he'd have been in a few films over the years. I don't think they'd have ever got rid of him.

He's a relic in the same way James Bond was once seen as an irrelevant relic, I suppose.

BlofeldSPECTRE

thelivingroyale wrote:

People keep saying he's a relic but if they hadn't lost the rights I think he'd have been in a few films over the years. I don't think they'd have ever got rid of him.

Exactly. He was in fact supposed to be the villain in The Spy Who Loved Me but that's when the thunderball issue arouse so tey couldn't use him.

JimThompson45 wrote:

thelivingroyale wrote:

People keep saying he's a relic but if they hadn't lost the rights I think he'd have been in a few films over the years. I don't think they'd have ever got rid of him.

He's a relic in the same way James Bond was once seen as an irrelevant relic, I suppose.

Another excellent point. After Licence to Kill many critics voiced negative opinions when it was announced that GoldenEye would revive the series. Their claim was that Bond was a Cold War invention and that it should remain in the past but as the success of GoldenEye and all the other Bonds succeeding it have proven they were dead wrong. Bringing Blofeld back is an amazing idea he would fit so well into todays world so I hope that they are seriously considering re-introducing him in Bond 24 [-O<

Agent005

sirseanisbond wrote:

Replace the cat with a white tiger? Anyone? I think that would be an appropriate way of keeping the cat but changing it and making it better. Bond could get chased by it through the jungle outside Blofeld’s secret lair. I think that would be awesome!

There's a Siegfried & Roy joke in there somewhere...

RC7

JimThompson45 wrote:

Murdock wrote:

I wouldn't mind a re-imagining of Blofeld but I'd rather he had a different name. As Silva is sort of a re-imagined Scaramanga from the Novel.

Silva strikes me as being quite a bit different than Scaramanga -- and that's coming from a fellow who really enjoys Scaramanga's character.

Me too but to be fair to Murdock, P+W did say Scaramanga (Novel) was the inspiration for Silva.

sirseanisbond

Agent005 wrote:

sirseanisbond wrote:

Replace the cat with a white tiger? Anyone? I think that would be an appropriate way of keeping the cat but changing it and making it better. Bond could get chased by it through the jungle outside Blofeld’s secret lair. I think that would be awesome!

There's a Siegfried & Roy joke in there somewhere...

I supose you're right. Maybe a a normal tiger, or a lion then? I just like the idea of his personall pet being deadly. The snake idea would make him seem like he belings in the Chamber of Secrets to be honest. At least a cat would be more trainable, and much more photogenic for the film.

FromCanadaWithLove

The truth is, Blofeld's character was really underplayed in the films. The only good Blofeld, in my opinion, was Savalas. But even then, he almost played a different role.

Blofeld's character become somewhat of a parody of itself. They couldn't bring him back with a white cat, a scar over his eye, and cement-grey overalls. The most they could use is his name.

The writer's don't need to bring up Blofeld. Skyfall has proven that an original villain (but based off of previous) is the way to go.

OHMSS69

All the talk and wishful thinking of bringing Blofelf back. I have several problems with this:
1. The series don't need this "open for parody" character
2. We still have the shadowy organization Quantum and Mr. White
3. Also there may still be some legal issues involving that character and SPECTRE as to who owns the rights. You ever notice how it and the name is not mentioned in any more films since DAF ? You think that was by accident or choice of EON?

Agent005

OHMSS69 wrote:

3. Also there may still be some legal issues involving that character and SPECTRE as to who owns the rights. You ever notice how it and the name is not mentioned in any more films since DAF ? You think that was by accident or choice of EON?

EON now owns the rights to SPECTRE and Blofeld. I believe this came about around the same time they aquired the rights to Casino Royale...

McClory and his camp had the rights to SPECTRE, Blofeld, and the NSNA/TB storyline until the late '90s when MGM and/or EON bought them out.

sirseanisbond

http://www.craveonline.com/film/interviews/199687-the-spoiler-interview-barbara-broccoli-and-michael-g-wilson-on-skyfall

Interviewer: "Of course we fans followed John Logan’s cryptic Blofeld comment that Bond is nothing without Blofeld, and I think I know how that applies to Silva in Skyfall. If he chose to include Blofeld in the next movie, do you guys have the rights to that character back?"

Barbara Broccoli: "I mean, we’ve talked about Blofeld over the years. The thing is Blofeld was fantastic for the time but I think it’s about creating characters that are, villains that are more appropriate for the contemporary world. It’s more exciting for us to create somebody new."

God I hope Babz is playing tricks with us. Logan clearly wants Blofeld and he would be a very appropriate character for the contemporary world, IF THEY RE-INVENT HIM!!! It's one thing if they recast SPECTER as Quantum, but if they try to make a Blofeld-like character without naming him Blofeld, that’s just idiotic! Batman fights the Joker, not Crazy-Clown-Man. He has to be Blofeld! Honestly, all this says to me is that either Babz is an idiot, or they simply haven’t secured the rights fully. Or hell, maybe they're just going to try and keep it a surprise like they did with M in Skyfall...

Agent005

Agent005 wrote:

I doubt we'll be seeing Blofeld again...

"The thing is Blofeld was fantastic for the time but I think it’s about creating characters that are, villains that are more appropriate for the contemporary world. It’s more exciting for us to create somebody new."

- Barbara Broccoli

http://www.craveonline.com/film/interviews/199687-the-spoiler-interview-barbara-broccoli-and-michael-g-wilson-on-skyfall

It seems people missed my original post with that one...

Murdock

sirseanisbond wrote:

God I hope Babz is playing tricks with us. Logan clearly wants Blofeld and he would be a very appropriate character for the contemporary world, IF THE RE-INVENT HIM!!! It's one thing if they recast SPECTER as Quantum, but if they try to make a Blofeld-like character without naming him Blofeld, that’s just idiotic! Batman fights the Joker, not Crazy-Clown-Man. He has to be Blofeld! Honestly, all this says to me is that either Babz is an idiot, or they simply haven’t secured the rights fully. Or hell, maybe they're just going to try and keep it a surprise like they did with M in Skyfall...

No it's not, It's taking a step forward into fresh territory rather than going back and using an already used villain who has already been in three Bond films for the sake of the fans. For this I praise EoN for not remaking anything that was already used. Bond is not Batman. Batman villains die and come back all the time. Bond villains don't. Blofeld has seen his day. And it's time for new villains.There is nothing wrong with creating a character like Blofeld, but I don't want to see "Ernst Stavro Blofeld" again.

bondsum

Michael G. Wilson in reference to the Bond character: "He’s like Batman or Superman, these characters that are perennials."

If Eon can make it work with Le Chiffre (still the best villain of the modern era) then they can make it work with Blofeld.

RC7

Murdock wrote:

Batman villains die and come back all the time. Bond villains don't. Blofeld has seen his day. And it's time for new villains.

I never really felt they ever captured the Fleming Blofeld on screen, nor the mechanics of SPECTRE as detailed in the novels. For this reason I think there is definitely room to manouvre. He's such an enigmatic character, that unfortunately became a card board cut-out comic book villain, thanks in no small part to YOLT. Savalas did his best but I still don't think we've ever seen the character absolutely nailed on screen. The advantage of Blofeld is that his character is not time-specific, he could easily be slipped into a modern day scenario. In fact, as others have pointed out, his character could be more relevant now than ever. I wouldn't want the name shoe-horned in, I'd want a fully formed and rounded character, something to get my teeth into. It wouldn't have to span a whole host of films, you could do a Blofeld story across two films and tie it up neatly.

JimThompson45

RC7 wrote:

SMe too but to be fair to Murdock, P+W did say Scaramanga (Novel) was the inspiration for Silva.

Really! I hadn't heard that. Well, if that was their intention, I think they missed the mark.

JimThompson45

bondsum wrote:

Michael G. Wilson in reference to the Bond character: "He’s like Batman or Superman, these characters that are perennials."

If Eon can make it work with Le Chiffre (still the best villain of the modern era) then they can make it work with Blofeld.

Well, I think DeSilva is the best villain of the "modern era", but Le Chiffre`was certainly a good one.

bondsum

Really, @JimThompson45? I know Javier Bardem is an excellent actor and has an Oscar for his No Country For Old Men villainous role, but I fail to see quite why Silva is considered a far better antagonist than either Le Chiffre, Mr White or even Franz Sanchez? I think what Bardem brings to the film is perhaps a more polished and nuanced performance than what we've seen from recent efforts (excluding Mads Mikkelsen's Le Chiffre), but that doesn't necessarily elevate his villain into the pantheon of all time greats. If one wanted to be critical one could argue that he was still a cliché with his superficial glass jaw, mad hair and cartoon ambivalence in rationale. In other words there was nothing that defined his character as unique or worthy of excessive praise. It was a good performance but without a lot of meat on the bone.

It's funny how some here denounce the Blofeld personality as being passé yet blatantly ignore the similarities between their so-called "fresh ideas" and the interchangeable ones of past glories.

JimThompson45

bondsum wrote:

Really, @JimThompson45? I know Javier Bardem is an excellent actor and has an Oscar for his No Country For Old Men villainous role, but I fail to see quite why Silva is considered a far better antagonist than either Le Chiffre, Mr White or even Franz Sanchez? I think what Bardem brings to the film is perhaps a more polished and nuanced performance than what we've seen from recent efforts (excluding Mads Mikkelsen's Le Chiffre), but that doesn't necessarily elevate his villain into the pantheon of all time greats. If one wanted to be critical one could argue that he was still a cliché with his superficial glass jaw, mad hair and cartoon ambivalence in rationale. In other words there was nothing that defined his character as unique or worthy of excessive praise. It was a good performance but without a lot of meat on the bone.

It's funny how some here denounce the Blofeld personality as being passé yet blatantly ignore the similarities between their so-called "fresh ideas" and the interchangeable ones of past glories.

Well, I certainly haven't been a person who's said the Blofeld personality is passe`, so I have no idea why that was directed at me. And I couldn't disagree with you more about Javier and DeSilva's character. I found him to be naunced, well considered, and completely believable inside the structure of the story. He had a reasonable, rational motivation for taking the actions he did, had an uncomfortable, sadistic side to his nature, and was, in many ways, a sort of warped mirror of Bond himself. That's not taking away anything from LeChiffre`; he was also a well-realized character, but in terms of his ability to stand toe-to-toe with Craig's character and make me believe the character truly had a chance to hurt Bond, to represent a real threat to him, I just thought DeSilva's character was the more convincing and powerful of the two.

bondsum

It wasn't directed at you, @JimThompson45, hence the reason why it was in a separate paragraph.

Of course, what you say about Bardem's performance is an echo of mine with "naunced" (see above) and on that we agree. I'm not so sure that I can agree on the rest of your strongly held beliefs with regards to being "completely believable" and "standing toe-to-toe with Craig". I felt LeChiffre did this better in CR at the poker table and when he gave Bond a beating with a rope knot.

JimThompson45

bondsum wrote:

It wasn't directed at you, @JimThompson45, hence the reason why it was in a separate paragraph.

Of course, what you say about Bardem's performance is an echo of mine with "naunced" (see above) and on that we agree. I'm not so sure that I can agree on the rest of your strongly held beliefs with regards to being "completely believable" and "standing toe-to-toe with Craig". I felt LeChiffre did this better in CR at the poker table and when he gave Bond a beating with a rope knot.

Le Chiffre` could only get Bond in a position to be physically harmed through other character's physical efforts and exertions. He was a great cerebral villain for Bond, I agree, but that was the extent of his menace, I think. DeSilva was both a great cerebral challenge to Bond as well as a physical one. He was Bond's equal in terms of tradecraft, cunning, and abilities, and that, for me, ups his status as a Bond villain. That has nothing to do with performance (I thought both performances were great); that's just the structure and make-up of the characters.

I understand you may not have been directing the other comment at me; I still am a bit in the dark as to why you felt the need to add it into your original comments.