SPECTRE: So who's going to play Ernst?

14850525354

Comments

  • edited August 2015 Posts: 13,246
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Question: who, among audiences and fans, would truly, truly, truly be happy if Christoph Waltz was not Blofeld? That the whole thing about building him as a Blofeld was a charade, an avalanche of red herrings?

    I don't think that the writer's and Wilson and Broccoli even think that far. They gave us QOS two films ago. Did anybody want that??

    I think they probably do when it comes to casting. If not them then Mendes. Who would sacrifice a good casting for a cheap twist? And whatever you think of QOS, they sure did the casting right. Mathieu Amalric is an amazing actor, very respected for his work. But he was not then and is not now nearly as famous as Christoph Waltz. They'd rather have a youthful Blofeld played by some guys who played Moriarty? I don't find this very likely.
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,021
    @Ludovico, true Mendes might plan ahead.
    QOS had a perfect cast that is for sure, Olga Kurylenko is amazing and one of the things I did like very much is Strawberry Fields.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 34,959
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    @BondJasonBond006, I wanted QoS, as did many others, apparently. Sure, it seems divided, but it's not as hated as DAD was. I LOVE QoS.

    Good for you but I believe QOS is one of the most "hated", I'd say disliked, Bond movies in general consensus. DAD too, as is DAF.

    Okay...with the point being what, exactly? If anything, you brought up QoS in a thread that is discussing who will play Blofeld in SP.
  • Posts: 11,119
    People really lose the perspective sometimes. First of all: A so called 'foster brother' is not a biological brother. So I really see it merely as an intense childhood family friendship. Similar to how I as a kid played a lot with the kids of my parent's friends, and then lost complete track of them, because 'they' decided to have kids at age 20 (so called teenage mums) and I went to university for a degree.

    Secondly, until this very date I NEVER heard a credible argument why Waltz will play Blofeld....and how this issue with his name will be incorporated in this narrative. So which name is 'fake'? Franz Oberhauser? Or Ernst Stavro Blofeld? Also, I would find it pretty lame and predictable if EON Productions simply copy-pasty that dreadful Khan/Harrison-narrative from "Star Trek Into Darkness" (A film that has been received pretty good by critics, but also a production that completely shitted on the intellect of all Trekkies).

    Don't forget that there's already pretty much of a big background history on both of Fleming's characters: Blofeld and Oberhauser. And in the case of Waltz being Blofeld, one of those name backgrounds HAS to be sacrificed and killed-off for the sake of being a....cheap, fake name. I find that dull and shows us an absolute lack of creativity.



    Therefore, I really stand with my own scenario. One that is actually way way more exciting than the 'Waltz plays Blofeld' narrative:

    The A-plot) The lead villain of "SPECTRE" IS Franz Oberhauser, the son of Hannes Oberhauser who got tragically killed in a skiing accident. Hannes Oberhauser and Andrew Bond were very good friends, until Andrew Bond died earlier than Hannes Oberhauser. Bond got 'adopted' by Hannes Oberhauser (similar by the way to how my uncle Klaas Naberman got listed as foster parent until age 18 in case my own parents would die due to an accident. Ask your families, it's a pretty normal thing, especially in Netherlands). Then later, Hannes Oberhauser got killed during a skiing accident by a member of MI6, Mr Dexter Smythe (the old "Octopussy" story). Hannes son Franz blames this on MI6....and Bond. During his life, Franz Oberhauser became member of various crime syndicates, including the Italian mafia and Red Tongue Syndicate. He always wanted to avenge James Bond and MI6 in a more cunning and sinister way than Silva did. He eventually becomes the first head of the new crime syndicate "SPECTRE", which goal is to completely eradicate the intelligence community with a more intelligent and sinister hacking plan. One that is more effective than Silva's unbelievable lone hacking project in Asia. In this plot, Franz Oberhauser is, like Doctor Julius No in "Dr. No", the main villain. Critics will hail Christoph Waltz as the lead villain Franz Oberhauser. A "perfect, more sinister and cruel head of the revived S.P.E.C.T.R.E., who has his 'revenge emotions' better in check than Raoul Silva". BUT, He is NOT Ernst Stavro Blofeld. He is Franz Oberhauser, until he dies in a cruel way at the end of the film, completely scarred.

    The B-plot) Another member of the British branch of "SPECTRE" was always more critical of Franz Oberhauser. He's heading the sinister hacking plan laid out by Oberhauser and to be executed on British soil. His name is 'Denbigh'.......Welsh form of.....'Blofeld'. He gets hailed by "SPECTRE", as the diabolical scheme succeeds. Sadly Oberhauser gets killed, but Denbigh is named as his successor at the end of the film. Denbigh calls himself Ernst Stavro Blofeld again. "SPECTRE" has become more powerful at the end of the film.....and Denbigh/Blofeld escapes in a treacherous way. Similar to how Blofeld escaped in "OHMSS".



    I think the above plot is the most realistical possibility of the events. And frankly, I sincerely hope the story will turn out like this. I would laugh my balls off if EVERY Bond fan gets it wrong, and that Blofeld turns out to be played by Andrew Scott ;-). Does it make the film ridiculous? As I mentioned above: Absolutely not! It's the very highlight of the film!. And all of the above I've been typing while listening to this wonderful track by Henry Jackman :-D:

  • Posts: 13,246
    I will quote myself:
    Secondly, until this very date I NEVER heard a credible argument why Waltz will play Blofeld....and how this issue with his name will be incorporated in this narrative.

    How about the fact that the movie is named Spectre, the name of a recurring organization in both novels and movies founded and ran by... Blofeld. A man who in at least one of his appearances (the novel OHMSS) looks a good deal like Christoph Waltz. How about the fact that Waltz wears a variant of the Nehru suit, the same thing that Blofeld wore in the movies before? How about the fact that Waltz was seen with marking in his face for possible subsequent CGI scarring, just like... Blofeld in the movie YOLT? How about the fact that if you are going to have someone play Bond's nemesis, you would rather have an actor of the stature of Christoph Waltz, instead of Andrew Scott? How about the fact that Blofeld is Eastern European and has a ethnic and cultural background far closer to Waltz than any other member of the cast?

    Even if this was an avalanche of red herrings... Why would they disappoint anyone except Scott's fans casting him as Blofeld? Why would he pass as Denbigh? How?
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,021
    The Blofeld situation just shown how wrong the writers have gone since SF.
    We are talking soap-opera territory here which is quite frankly pathetic for a Bond movie.
  • Posts: 13,246
    How so? We do not know yet how Blofeld will turn up and what will be his revamped history. He has always been Bond's nemesis, since the novels. He was going to reappear.
  • Posts: 11,119
    The Blofeld situation just shown how wrong the writers have gone since SF.
    We are talking soap-opera territory here which is quite frankly pathetic for a Bond movie.

    Did you actually.....read my post in detail Jason? I thought it might excite you, as it also confirms your thoughts :-).
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,021
    The Blofeld situation just shown how wrong the writers have gone since SF.
    We are talking soap-opera territory here which is quite frankly pathetic for a Bond movie.

    Did you actually.....read my post in detail Jason? I thought it might excite you, as it also confirms your thoughts :-).

    I read it of course and you and I seem to be the only people who can think straight...

    ...or are insane :))
  • Posts: 11,119
    The Blofeld situation just shown how wrong the writers have gone since SF.
    We are talking soap-opera territory here which is quite frankly pathetic for a Bond movie.

    Did you actually.....read my post in detail Jason? I thought it might excite you, as it also confirms your thoughts :-).

    I read it of course and you and I seem to be the only people who can think straight...

    ...or are insane :))

    Exactly :-P. And I think there's nothing soap-esque about my theory. It's quite credible. And if what I predict is true, then I think it's a stroke of a genius by the writers of SP ;-).
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,021
    The Blofeld situation just shown how wrong the writers have gone since SF.
    We are talking soap-opera territory here which is quite frankly pathetic for a Bond movie.

    Did you actually.....read my post in detail Jason? I thought it might excite you, as it also confirms your thoughts :-).

    I read it of course and you and I seem to be the only people who can think straight...

    ...or are insane :))

    Exactly :-P. And I think there's nothing soap-esque about my theory. It's quite credible. And if what I predict is true, then I think it's a stroke of a genius by the writers of SP ;-).

    No of course not, I didn't mean your theory is soap-opera like but if Oberhauser turns out to be Blofeld that is a soap-opera.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,446
    The Blofeld situation just shown how wrong the writers have gone since SF.
    We are talking soap-opera territory here which is quite frankly pathetic for a Bond movie.

    Did you actually.....read my post in detail Jason? I thought it might excite you, as it also confirms your thoughts :-).

    I read it of course and you and I seem to be the only people who can think straight...

    ...or are insane :))

    Exactly :-P. And I think there's nothing soap-esque about my theory. It's quite credible. And if what I predict is true, then I think it's a stroke of a genius by the writers of SP ;-).

    Your ego knows no bounds.
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,021
    RC7 wrote: »
    The Blofeld situation just shown how wrong the writers have gone since SF.
    We are talking soap-opera territory here which is quite frankly pathetic for a Bond movie.

    Did you actually.....read my post in detail Jason? I thought it might excite you, as it also confirms your thoughts :-).

    I read it of course and you and I seem to be the only people who can think straight...

    ...or are insane :))

    Exactly :-P. And I think there's nothing soap-esque about my theory. It's quite credible. And if what I predict is true, then I think it's a stroke of a genius by the writers of SP ;-).

    Your ego knows no bounds.

    Thank you, I know.
    Or did you mean Gustav_Graves :-O
    :))
  • Posts: 11,119
    RC7 wrote: »
    The Blofeld situation just shown how wrong the writers have gone since SF.
    We are talking soap-opera territory here which is quite frankly pathetic for a Bond movie.

    Did you actually.....read my post in detail Jason? I thought it might excite you, as it also confirms your thoughts :-).

    I read it of course and you and I seem to be the only people who can think straight...

    ...or are insane :))

    Exactly :-P. And I think there's nothing soap-esque about my theory. It's quite credible. And if what I predict is true, then I think it's a stroke of a genius by the writers of SP ;-).

    Your ego knows no bounds.

    Thank you, I know.
    Or did you mean Gustav_Graves :-O
    :))

    He did mean me @BondJasonBond006 :-). He confuses ego-ism for enthusiasm and excitement :-).
  • Posts: 13,246
    RC7 wrote: »
    The Blofeld situation just shown how wrong the writers have gone since SF.
    We are talking soap-opera territory here which is quite frankly pathetic for a Bond movie.

    Did you actually.....read my post in detail Jason? I thought it might excite you, as it also confirms your thoughts :-).

    I read it of course and you and I seem to be the only people who can think straight...

    ...or are insane :))

    Exactly :-P. And I think there's nothing soap-esque about my theory. It's quite credible. And if what I predict is true, then I think it's a stroke of a genius by the writers of SP ;-).

    Your ego knows no bounds.

    And delusion. I wouldn't want to be the writer who wrote a role for Andrew Scott when Christoph Waltz is in the casting. That would be like Iron Man 3 all over again.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,446
    Ludovico wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    The Blofeld situation just shown how wrong the writers have gone since SF.
    We are talking soap-opera territory here which is quite frankly pathetic for a Bond movie.

    Did you actually.....read my post in detail Jason? I thought it might excite you, as it also confirms your thoughts :-).

    I read it of course and you and I seem to be the only people who can think straight...

    ...or are insane :))

    Exactly :-P. And I think there's nothing soap-esque about my theory. It's quite credible. And if what I predict is true, then I think it's a stroke of a genius by the writers of SP ;-).

    Your ego knows no bounds.

    And delusion. I wouldn't want to be the writer who wrote a role for Andrew Scott when Christoph Waltz is in the casting. That would be like Iron Man 3 all over again.

    Some fans know better, though.
  • Posts: 13,246
    RC7 wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    The Blofeld situation just shown how wrong the writers have gone since SF.
    We are talking soap-opera territory here which is quite frankly pathetic for a Bond movie.

    Did you actually.....read my post in detail Jason? I thought it might excite you, as it also confirms your thoughts :-).

    I read it of course and you and I seem to be the only people who can think straight...

    ...or are insane :))

    Exactly :-P. And I think there's nothing soap-esque about my theory. It's quite credible. And if what I predict is true, then I think it's a stroke of a genius by the writers of SP ;-).

    Your ego knows no bounds.

    And delusion. I wouldn't want to be the writer who wrote a role for Andrew Scott when Christoph Waltz is in the casting. That would be like Iron Man 3 all over again.

    Some fans know better, though.

    Bond fans or Scott fans?; -)
  • Posts: 11,119
    Ludovico wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    The Blofeld situation just shown how wrong the writers have gone since SF.
    We are talking soap-opera territory here which is quite frankly pathetic for a Bond movie.

    Did you actually.....read my post in detail Jason? I thought it might excite you, as it also confirms your thoughts :-).

    I read it of course and you and I seem to be the only people who can think straight...

    ...or are insane :))

    Exactly :-P. And I think there's nothing soap-esque about my theory. It's quite credible. And if what I predict is true, then I think it's a stroke of a genius by the writers of SP ;-).

    Your ego knows no bounds.

    And delusion. I wouldn't want to be the writer who wrote a role for Andrew Scott when Christoph Waltz is in the casting. That would be like Iron Man 3 all over again.

    What do you actually mean by that? For both Christoph Waltz and Andrew Scott a role had to be written. It's as simple as that :-).

    I just think it would show a lack of inspiration and creativity, something @RC7 talks a great deal about, if the Khan/Harrisson-narrative is entirely copy-pasted into the SPECTRE-plot. With that I mean that Oberhauser = Blofeld. I truly find that lame and uninspired.

    I think something more unexpected, more inspired could happen in SP. That's all I have to say. You can call me 'delusional' for that......I don't care :-).
  • Posts: 13,246
    Into Darkness messed up Khan for different reasons, among them poor casting (Cumberbatch is a fine actor but is not Khan material). Scott as Blofeld would be stupid casting as he's nothing like Blofeld. It would be stupid writing too, creating a twist for the sake of it. THAT would be akin to Into Darkness and also... Iron Man 3. you're leading the evidence in any case.

    Don't ever write a Dracula script. Stoker's work has been massacred enough already.
  • Posts: 11,119
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Into Darkness messed up Khan for different reasons, among them poor casting (Cumberbatch is a fine actor but is not Khan material). Scott as Blofeld would be stupid casting as he's nothing like Blofeld. It would be stupid writing too, creating a twist for the sake of it. THAT would be akin to Into Darkness and also... Iron Man 3. you're leading the evidence in any case.

    Don't ever write a Dracula script. Stoker's work has been massacred enough already.

    So.....you approve of Waltz being both Blofeld and Oberhauser? And that one of those characters, created by Ian Fleming, is entirely fake?
  • Posts: 13,246
    I do not "approve" of anything, in the sense that I have not seen the movie and do not know enough about the plot to say if a plot point I know nothing about for certain is good or bad. What I am saying is:

    1)Christoph Waltz is the most likely candidate to play Blofeld, for reasons I will not bother to repeat here, but you can read this thread and others if you need to remember why.

    2)Casting Andrew Scott as Blofeld in disguise would be a terrible idea that would disappoint audiences. Regardless of the plausibility (or lack of) of the "Denbigh is Blofeld" hypothesis.
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    edited August 2015 Posts: 9,021
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Into Darkness messed up Khan for different reasons, among them poor casting (Cumberbatch is a fine actor but is not Khan material). Scott as Blofeld would be stupid casting as he's nothing like Blofeld. It would be stupid writing too, creating a twist for the sake of it. THAT would be akin to Into Darkness and also... Iron Man 3. you're leading the evidence in any case.

    Don't ever write a Dracula script. Stoker's work has been massacred enough already.

    I agree on Star Trek Into Darkness, Cumberbatch seemed an odd choice to play Khan.
    But then it is a remake, and they remade the Trek universe in a very, very big way the second Vulcan was destroyed.
    So Khan being a stiff white Brit wasn't that big a problem.
    Into Darkness still is a fantastic movie.

    Bond on the other hand is not a remake, but a reboot (a prequel of sorts) and they have already acted like it was a loosely based remake in casting MP and Q with completely different kind of actors. So why not Andrew Scott as Blofeld?

    Furthermore Scott is one great actor and probably even better than the somewhat overrated Waltz.
    Don't get me wrong, Waltz is splendid, but receiving two Oscars for roughly the same role was a bit too much in my opinion. But the Oscars have never been logical anyway.
  • MurdockMurdock Mr. 2000
    Posts: 16,057
    Or you know Waltz could pretending to be Oberhauser to get at Bond. We won't know until the movie comes out. Maybe Daniel Craig is Blofeld and that we're all SPECTRE agents. That would be a big twist. ;) =))
  • Posts: 13,246
    Actually, remaking a whole character with the same background and origins as the original series was a huge mistake. Khan was not a whitewashed psycho Brit, but an uberman of Asian origins, a charismatic leader of man. Into Darkness just labeled the name into some rand of the mill badguy.

    Why not Scott as Blofeld? Because he is lightweight compared to Waltz (all personal considerations aside, which are just that, personal considerations, who of the two won Oscars? who has the greatest stature?), because the character Blofeld would then impersonate would be British, which makes no sense at all, because Scott is nothing like the Blofeld of the source material, whether it is the novel version or the cinematic version. And because, because, because, all the evidences so far lead to Waltz as Blofeld (read this thread again, I won't bother listing them here).
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,021
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Actually, remaking a whole character with the same background and origins as the original series was a huge mistake. Khan was not a whitewashed psycho Brit, but an uberman of Asian origins, a charismatic leader of man. Into Darkness just labeled the name into some rand of the mill badguy.

    Why not Scott as Blofeld? Because he is lightweight compared to Waltz (all personal considerations aside, which are just that, personal considerations, who of the two won Oscars? who has the greatest stature?), because the character Blofeld would then impersonate would be British, which makes no sense at all, because Scott is nothing like the Blofeld of the source material, whether it is the novel version or the cinematic version. And because, because, because, all the evidences so far lead to Waltz as Blofeld (read this thread again, I won't bother listing them here).

    If Blofeld only pretends to be Oberhauser then it's ok with me. That would even be the best solution I think.
    But then, didn't only the media bring this Blofeld business up? If I'm not mistaken, EON and all people involved in production never ever only gave the slightest hint that Waltz's character would be Blofeld or that Blofeld even was in Spectre.
  • Posts: 13,246
    Of course EON would want to keep the big reveal as close to their chest as possible, whatever that is and however obvious it may already be. But there's a lot of evidence that indicates that Waltz will be Blofeld: not only his clothes but also the marks on his face when he was seen filming in London.

    I call this twist, if indeed he is revealed as Blofeld and the evidence is not an avalanche of red herrings the "Jekyll and Hyde twist". Everybody knows it.
  • Posts: 11,119
    Now for those who support the Waltz = Blofeld theory, I do find this theory more credible. It looks more probable and it summarizes arguments that many of us in this topic didn't formulate:

    http://www.imdb.com/board/bd0000075/thread/247818805

    -Blofeld is, of course, known for his abilities to change his appearance, so his appearance as "Oberhauser" in this film is the product of extensive plastic surgery as he poses as a figure of Bond's past.

    -Ernst Stavro Blofeld has killed the real Franz Oberhauser and has taken his identity (which is similar to the second theory, but without the plastic surgery).

    This would also fit in the Hoffler Klinik in the story. A Clinic where plastic surgery for the rich and wealthy is being executed.

    Still, at this moment I stick to my own theory....
  • edited August 2015 Posts: 13,246
    He may not even need plastic surgery, minor or major: Franz Oberhauser was a teenager (at best) when he knew Bond and for all we know the only picture left of him is this one we see in the trailer, where his face is burned out! All he truly may need is a copy of Oberhauser's birth certificate (or forge one).

    As for assuming another identity, it is far easier to have the one of an obscure German citizen with little known relatives or friends (especially if the people closest to him are either dead or knew him in the 1970s) than a high ranking British civil servant who would need to pass through lots of checks to be in the position he is now. It would be far easier for Denbigh to be a traitor than to truly be Blofeld. Not to mention, again, than Scott is nothing like Blofeld. Unless Blofeld is now akin to Minime (yes, I find Scott that menacing).
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,446
    Now for those who support the Waltz = Blofeld theory, I do find this theory more credible. It looks more probable and it summarizes arguments that many of us in this topic didn't formulate:

    http://www.imdb.com/board/bd0000075/thread/247818805

    -Blofeld is, of course, known for his abilities to change his appearance, so his appearance as "Oberhauser" in this film is the product of extensive plastic surgery as he poses as a figure of Bond's past.

    -Ernst Stavro Blofeld has killed the real Franz Oberhauser and has taken his identity (which is similar to the second theory, but without the plastic surgery).

    This would also fit in the Hoffler Klinik in the story. A Clinic where plastic surgery for the rich and wealthy is being executed.

    Still, at this moment I stick to my own theory....

    I think that's unlikely and quite shit.
  • Posts: 11,119
    RC7 wrote: »
    Now for those who support the Waltz = Blofeld theory, I do find this theory more credible. It looks more probable and it summarizes arguments that many of us in this topic didn't formulate:

    http://www.imdb.com/board/bd0000075/thread/247818805

    -Blofeld is, of course, known for his abilities to change his appearance, so his appearance as "Oberhauser" in this film is the product of extensive plastic surgery as he poses as a figure of Bond's past.

    -Ernst Stavro Blofeld has killed the real Franz Oberhauser and has taken his identity (which is similar to the second theory, but without the plastic surgery).

    This would also fit in the Hoffler Klinik in the story. A Clinic where plastic surgery for the rich and wealthy is being executed.

    Still, at this moment I stick to my own theory....

    I think that's unlikely and quite shit.

    Shot can be made of various precious and culinary refined ingredients. And before it becomes shit, those ingredients could make a wonderful dish that Ian Fleming would have loved to try....
Sign In or Register to comment.