462 replies to this topic

[AgenttiNollaNollaSeitsemän]

I actually like that.

[seawolfnyy]

This actually seems far better and far more plausible.

 

Spoiler

than the crap in the Sony thread

[Guy Haines]

Thanks for the comments about my idea so far. The "Who is Oberhauser?" question has been puzzling me since the announcement, as there seemed to be more to it than a mere diversion on the part of the film makers as to the villain's true identity. In previous posts I've considered identity theft, but the idea of Blofeld assuming the identity of a real person seemed a bit clunky - why borrow someone else's when you can make one up? (Which in the books Blofeld did more than once.)

 

What bothered me was where Hannes Oberhauser fitted in. In the scenario I've considered both father, son (And immediate family?) have changed identities - had to under an intelligence witness protection programme, perhaps. So far as the youthful Bond was concerned, Hannes was the man he seemed. Regarding Franz - Bond may or may not have encountered him as a youth. I prefer to think he didn't - Franz went his own way, and Hannes took Bond under his wing instead. No matter. Franz goes on to become the master criminal - Bond the intelligence agent, and at some point their interests conflict.

 

It might be objected to that it's another "this time it's personal" idea. It doesn't have to be. It's centred on a very convenient coincidence, but if "Franz" never met Bond in his youth, and merely uses this knowledge of a family connection to advance SPECTRE by it, this gets around any "personal" issues..

 

Finally, I'm aware of the email spoilers from yesterday. I'm treating them with a massive dose of salt. What I've made out from them doesn't sound anything like a finished storyline to me. This Oberhauser & Son = Blofeld senior and junior idea here just came to me after considering all the other alternatives. It gives the villain a backstory, establishes a connection with Bond which neither may have realised existed, and links to Fleming original material, although it changes Hannes' background somewhat.

[Guy Haines]

Another day, another interview.

 

Christoph Waltz, quoted in the entertainment section of the "Huffington Post" insists he's playing a character named Franz Oberhauser - or as he says " F R A N Z Oberhauser, and I don't need to spell that."

 

Now this might be a bluff, along the lines of "John Harrison" in Star Trek Into Darkness. But supposing - contrary to the wafflings above by yours truly about Oberhauser's real identity - he's right? Oberhauser is Oberhauser. The Huffington article speculates that "Blofeld" itself might be a cover name for the head of SPECTRE. This might well irritate some - me included - but in this reboot era a lot of things have changed about Bond and the characters he's involved with.

 

If the character Waltz plays isn't Blofeld - still a big if I think - then might he be the original founder of Quantum, now renamed SPECTRE, whom Bond encounters and defeats - unless, of course, Oberhauser ends up getting the "Le Chiffre" treatment from a certain Mr. White? Either way, someone else in the film, or merely mentioned in the film -lets call that person Blofeld - assumes the leadership afterwards, setting up a final conflict in Bond 25.

 

I'm still more inclined to believe that Oberhauser is really Blofeld, although I can easily envisage someone else in the cast being revealed as such . But in the end a Bond film named Spectre, promoted by a teaser poster featuring a play on the original octopus logo which didn't feature Blofeld in some form or other would to my mind be like Hamlet without The Prince or, for that matter, a Bond movie without Bond.

[AgenttiNollaNollaSeitsemän]

I'm starting to think that Oberhauser is not the Ernst Stavro Blofeld - it might as well be that in this rebooted continuity a character named ESB may never appear.

Edited by AgenttiNollaNollaSeitsemän, 13 December 2014 - 09:44 AM.

[Guy Haines]

Or alternatively - and this might please a lot of fans - that we get a rebooted version of "the man", ESB etc - but something like the good old days pre-YOLT when all we got was Anthony Dawson's hands and back of head and Eric Pohlmann's voice.

 

Which, in continuing the air of mystery about Blofeld, SPECTRE, Quantum and so on, might not be a bad idea either. Another clever reference back to the originals whilst continuing the reboot?

 

One more bit of speculative mischief on my part, this time about the organisation. A lot of us are assuming post QoS  - myself included - that Quantum is taken over by SPECTRE. Suppose, by the end of the new film, it's the other way around. Suppose SPECTRE is a set up by Oberhauser for whatever reasons which attracts Quantum's attention, and that Bond is the unwitting weapon used by them to engineer a "reverse takeover". Oberhauser is defeated, but SPECTRE is taken over by Quantum and the head of that group (Let's call that person, for the sake of argument, "Blofeld" ) decides to adopt the acronym for his organisation.

 

Ah well, another bit of pointless and probably inaccurate speculation. No emails involved in any of this by the way -it's just the way my mind works!

[AgenttiNollaNollaSeitsemän]

Or alternatively - and this might please a lot of fans - that we get a rebooted version of "the man", ESB etc - but something like the good old days pre-YOLT when all we got was Anthony Dawson's hands and back of head and Eric Pohlmann's voice.

 

Showing such a character right in the end would be a wonderful cliffhanger ending, setting the stage for Bond 25. Who knows? All I know that these last few days have been probably most thought-provoking and even nervewrecking days I've ever experienced as a Bond fan!

[west]

Could it be possible that this version of SPECTRE is a resurgence of the organisation, and that Blofeld is no more, and there is a new head?

I know that this is the 'reboot era', but honestly the Bond timeline is a jumble at best, not to mention the paradox caused by Judi Dench's M. Could it be that Blofeld was the head of SPECTRE, then the organisation disappeared and was quiet and has now resurfaced?

 

I doubt it, but I think I would prefer it if we had a resurgent SPECTRE, with a new mysterious head. Just because it's SPECTRE, it doesn't mean there needs to be a Blofeld.

[AgenttiNollaNollaSeitsemän]

Just because it's SPECTRE, it doesn't mean there needs to be a Blofeld.

My thoughts exactly. The new SPECTRE most likely has completely different backstory than described in the novel Thunderball.

Edited by AgenttiNollaNollaSeitsemän, 13 December 2014 - 01:09 PM.

[Guy Haines]

Points taken because, of course, that is similar to what happened in the John Gardner novels "Role Of Honour" and "Nobody Lives Forever". SPECTRE carried on without Blofeld, in this case his daughter, Nena. And yes it could happen and it could work.

 

But given this reboot of Bond, in which old characters are treated as new and are re-imagined, it would seem a bit odd, to me at least, to introduce SPECTRE as Bond's adversary, and after all these years of being unable to use anything related to the novel Thunderball, and not at some point introduce the man most associated with SPECTRE - if not in this film, then Bond 25 (or beyond if Daniel Craig is inclined to carry on beyond a five picture term.)

 

I like the idea of a cliffhanger ending, perhaps resolving a power struggle between Oberhauser and, er, someone else , in which said someone else prevails in a coup d'état within SPECTRE. (And with Bond - or Mr White? - being the person who finishes Oberhauser off?)

[Agent 76]

Could it be possible that this version of SPECTRE is a resurgence of the organisation, and that Blofeld is no more, and there is a new head?

I know that this is the 'reboot era', but honestly the Bond timeline is a jumble at best, not to mention the paradox caused by Judi Dench's M. Could it be that Blofeld was the head of SPECTRE, then the organisation disappeared and was quiet and has now resurfaced?

 

I doubt it, but I think I would prefer it if we had a resurgent SPECTRE, with a new mysterious head. Just because it's SPECTRE, it doesn't mean there needs to be a Blofeld.

That makes sense, I wouldn't be against something like that in the movie. good point West

[007jamesbond]

Could it be possible that this version of SPECTRE is a resurgence of the organisation, and that Blofeld is no more, and there is a new head?

I know that this is the 'reboot era', but honestly the Bond timeline is a jumble at best, not to mention the paradox caused by Judi Dench's M. Could it be that Blofeld was the head of SPECTRE, then the organisation disappeared and was quiet and has now resurfaced?

 

I doubt it, but I think I would prefer it if we had a resurgent SPECTRE, with a new mysterious head. Just because it's SPECTRE, it doesn't mean there needs to be a Blofeld.

 

It could work that SPECTRE exist but Blofeld is dead but it sure piss some fans off who have waited so long for his arch nemesis to return 

[Guy Haines]

A SPECTRE in the reboot era, with or without Blofeld could work. Personally I'd like to see the most infamous member of that organisation re-imagined as part of it, because otherwise it would be a missed opportunity to reacquaint the cinema world not only with a feared criminal syndicate but also a classic villain, albeit in different circumstances unrelated to the films pre 2006. (Plus, having acquired the Thunderball rights at last, why not use them to the full?)

 

What I'm not sure about is SPECTRE appearing in Spectre or future movies as, in the words I remember from the John Gardner novel "For Special Services", some "mutated phoenix risen from the ashes", with Blofeld nowhere to be seen, or mentioned in dispatches as dead. I think there would be too much timeline trouble, unless it was defeated in a period pre CR2006 which has nothing to do with the 1962-2002 series of films. And then, defeated by who? Not Bond, an agent lacking 00 status up to CR2006.

 

Better to treat SPECTRE and, if he's involved, Blofeld in the same way as other familiar elements which have "returned" to the series - as if they weren't there before. Strange, I know, but that's reboots for you!

[Vauxhall]

If SPECTRE was to last beyond this film without Blofeld, they'd have to build up a secondary villain. It would be tough to roll the organisation over with no connection between the films. No matter what anyone thinks of Quantum, Mr White appearing in more than one film solidified the consistency of that group.

[willdj]

I just think this whole thing is a bit rushed story wise - firstly they rushed going from rookie agent to worn down old spy from qos to skyfall which i didnt understand and now theyre going it seems one and done with spectre and wrapping up a whole story - seems like we're heading for some kind of reboot again after this one

[Guy Haines]

Good points made by Vauxhall and willdj. If you're going to use "that organisation" in one film, why not in future movies - although, I suppose if SPECTRE doesn't survive at the end of the film that bears its name there's nothing to stop a re-born version emerging in future, which is where I think the "phoenix from ashes" idea would make more sense.

 

So far as a future reboot is concerned - the whole Craig canon so far has seemed to me to be about establishing Bond. Double 00 status, love, loss and betrayal in CR. Revenge - possibly - and some sort of closure of CR in QoS (Though that could change in the new film.) Near death and re-emergence in SF - and emergence of familiar characters. And now quite possibly tackling a nemesis who is an equal in Spectre.  Familiar themes from the books and the films up to 2002 being re-worked from 2006 onwards. It's as if the film makers are trying to remake, if not the whole series, but elements from the series in four or five films which aren't remakes, save, technically, CR. And as someone remarked at the time of CR, these films which are as much "about James Bond" as "James Bond films". There is a difference if you think about it.

 

(And if I'm right about the Craig films, I think another reboot would be unnecessary - what we would have as Bond 7 is a fully formed Bond who has seen it all.)

 

None of which has spoilt my enjoyment of all three Craig movies and I hope and expect won't spoil his fourth.

[willdj]

but is there enough story left when hes now by skyfall standards of being old and washed up compared to Q etc.. when he was a fresh faced newbie in CR?

it seems they've done his whole story here - I just don't think what they've done with these movies is sustainable for another 24 films because they've very purposely made a story with a beginning and an end (and i think skipped out the middle) - absolutely agree on the about James Bond thing rather than James Bond films and ive thoroughly enjoyed all of them too - it seems they're thinking like a Marvel film or the Batman trilogy not  an ongoing series - maybe that's a change we have to get used to - not sure

[west]

but is there enough story left when hes now by skyfall standards of being old and washed up compared to Q etc.. when he was a fresh faced newbie in CR?

it seems they've done his whole story here - I just don't think what they've done with these movies is sustainable for another 24 films because they've very purposely made a story with a beginning and an end (and i think skipped out the middle) - absolutely agree on the about James Bond thing rather than James Bond films and ive thoroughly enjoyed all of them too - it seems they're thinking like a Marvel film or the Batman trilogy not  an ongoing series - maybe that's a change we have to get used to - not sure

 

That's my main point of contention withe the Craig-Era. Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace essentially covers his first mission as a Double-O and then we jump straight to him being berated for being past it in Skyfall. (we also jump straight from him callously dumping the body of a close ally in Mathis into a dumpster to him jeopardizing the success of the mission by worrying over a wounded agent at the start of Skyfall). For a 'reboot' era that was meant to take us back to the start of Bond's career we seemed to miss a lot.

 

I don't believe Bond can be portrayed as a novice Double-O again after Skyfall (which to be honest, makes me think they missed an opportunity with the potential 'early Bond' stories). Personally, I think the best way forward is to just not draw attention to the timeline. Bond was an experienced agent when we met him in Dr. No and stayed that way for twenty films. He was a novice in Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace, was recovering from a trauma in Skyfall (hence was off his game, rather than being past it) and going forward I think it best to just treat him as an experienced agent as he was when we met him in Dr. No.

[AgenttiNollaNollaSeitsemän]

I wish the return of the SPECTRE organization is long term affair, being prominent in Bond 25 and even beyond. Not perhaps in every film, but as a recurring threat,

[SkyfallCraig]

I think that they could play with us, letting us believe that he is actually playing Blofeld but he is only his mentor and Blofeld will appear in Bond 25

[AgenttiNollaNollaSeitsemän]

I think that they could play with us, letting us believe that he is actually playing Blofeld but he is only his mentor and Blofeld will appear in Bond 25

A possible scenario.

[AdaShelby]

Maybe Mr. White was obviously a SPECTRE operative all along, being Blofeld's "little pet". After all Blofeld's cat was a white persian cat? (Just a little joke)

 

 

 

[Trevelyan 006]

Bond and Blofeld shouldn't originate as childhood friends. Ever. In any universe. 

[Twingolot]

Agree with Trevelyan 006, what about Blofeld killing Bond parents as a child? I just find all these storylines too cliche to be taken seriously. Bond isn't a Marvel guy. However, Blofeld as 'Franz' Oberhauser, just in order to approach Bond (with Hannes Oberhauser not having any son at all), this would be a great idea. 

[Royal Dalton]

I don't think Blofeld actually exists in the Craig-Bond universe. It's just a cover name.

[whitesox]

Bond and Blofeld shouldn't originate as childhood friends. Ever. In any universe. 

I so agree....

[Major Tallon]

I also agree.  To quote Jack Wade, "Please, no."

[AdaShelby]

I think Bond's history would be better off if he didn't have any childhood friends, Craig's Bond seems so damaged even before Vesper's death and I think for him to have a lonely childhood even before his parents both died would be better for his characterisation.

 

I really don't know how we're going to be able to wait under a year to find out. If I could only be in one of the writers' minds for a day and read the final script over and over again. 

Edited by AdaShelby, 14 December 2014 - 11:10 PM.

[JCRendle]

I think Bond's history would be better off if he didn't have any childhood friends

I would find this extremely unlikely -you don't win numerous athletic competitions, twice box for your school as a light weight and Form the first intermural judo league for the public school circuit (as we know Craig's Bond did in his childhood through Casino Royale's Dossier) it would be extremely unlikely that he didn't make any friends in the sports circuit at least. I think depriving Bond of childhood friendship is, even for a fictional character overly cruel - and through Tanner, we know he is able to make friends- he's not a sociopath/psychopath.

[Professor Pi]

 

Bond and Blofeld shouldn't originate as childhood friends. Ever. In any universe. 

I so agree....

 

 

Plus, if they're trying to get away from Austin Powers, why copy exactly what was in Goldmember?!