462 replies to this topic

[RMc2]

 

An extract from Christoph Waltz's GQ interview from the addition that will be published on April 9th. But we did get very similar "I'm not playing Moneypenny" remarks from Naomie Harris in interviews last time.

 

http://www.gq-magazi...ranz-oberhauser

 

On whether he is playing the classic Bond villain Blofeld:

"That is absolutely untrue. That rumour started on the Internet, and the Internet is a pest. The name of my character is Franz Oberhauser."

 

 

 

Interesting emphasis on the name... I smell misdirection

[Guy Haines]

What I find interesting is not the "is Oberhauser really Blofeld?" stuff - we'll know this November one way or the other. It's Christoph Waltz's first comments about whether he hesitated before deciding to do Bond, and he's clearly impressed with the way the films have developed in the Daniel Craig era.

[Shrublands]

 

 

An extract from Christoph Waltz's GQ interview from the addition that will be published on April 9th. But we did get very similar "I'm not playing Moneypenny" remarks from Naomie Harris in interviews last time.

 

http://www.gq-magazi...ranz-oberhauser

 

On whether he is playing the classic Bond villain Blofeld:

"That is absolutely untrue. That rumour started on the Internet, and the Internet is a pest. The name of my character is Franz Oberhauser."

 

 

 

Interesting emphasis on the name... I smell misdirection

 

 

And he could also say at a later date "Well, My Blofeld is not another version of the 'classic Bond villain Blofeld', this is a reinvention. Furthermore, my character is called Franz Oberhauser." 

[Call Billy Bob]

And he could also say at a later date "Well, My Blofeld is not another version of the 'classic Bond villain Blofeld', this is a reinvention. Furthermore, my character is called Franz Oberhauser."

This is what I'm thinking. The word "classic" is key. He's not playing Blofeld in the "classic" sense, but a new interpretation.

[Guy Haines]

I always thought, long before we had confirmation that Bond 24 would be Spectre, that the re-introduction of the leader of SPECTRE at some point would involve a re-invention rather than the classic Mao-suit and cat character brought to life in the 21st century. The only thing that never occurred to me was that the re-invention might involve inventing an entirely new character rather than a re-imaging of Blofeld.

 

Of course, Waltz's character may turn out to be Blofeld after all. But equally, Blofeld may not exist in this new version of SPECTRE - or not yet. Is Oberhauser perhaps the chief executive, while the main investor is a shadowy figure we have yet to encounter until Bond 25? A main investor who is content to "cultivate his garden" while leaving the work to underlings - until Bond upsets everything and SPECTRE goes the same way as Quantum? At which point he reaches out in Bond 25 to strike back at Bond, one way or another, setting up a final confrontation between 007 and the individual behind everything from CR 2006 onwards?

[SecretAgentFan]

I guess he´s really not playing Blofeld - maybe that character gets re-introduced but just in the shadows, only at the end of SPECTRE, for use in future films.

[sharpshooter]

I'm of the opinion the character really is Blofeld. But I respect Waltz's position here. On paper, he *is* playing Franz Oberhauser. Any other revelations are best left for the final film.

[seawolfnyy]

Well, remember how vehemently J.J. Abrams said that Benedict Cumberbatch was NOT playing Khan....

[Guy Haines]

Indeed, to the point where not only did we have the character "John Harrison" - the actual cover name for Khan in the movie - but early in production one of the cast - Karl Urban, I think - said that Benedict Cumberbatch was playing a character named Gary Mitchell, a good turned bad man who featured in an early episode of the original Trek series. Double misdirection.

[Call Billy Bob]

Indeed, to the point where not only did we have the character "John Harrison" - the actual cover name for Khan in the movie - but early in production one of the cast - Karl Urban, I think - said that Benedict Cumberbatch was playing a character named Gary Mitchell, a good turned bad man who featured in an early episode of the original Trek series.

Funny, I read a rumor earlier this week that said Idris Elba may be playing Gary Mitchell in the 3rd film.

[kneelbeforezod]

I think it's very obvious that Waltz is playing Blofeld, and it will be a nice surprise for some viewers when they watch the film. Of course, in the months before its release, film sites and blogs will do their best to ruin that surprise, just like they did with Khan.

[Guy Haines]

I think the problem with Spectre, as opposed to Star Trek:Into Darkness, and the identity of the villains in both is this; in Star Trek, Benedict Cumberbatch could have been playing a new villain, or a rebooted one from the previous TV series, and the title wouldn't have given a hint as to who that character was.

 

Whereas a film called "Spectre"? Christoph Waltz may insist that the internet has pushed the "Blofeld" rumour, but didn't the speculation start right from the outset in the traditional press, printed and online? And it's the title that appeared to give the game away - the press hacks, even the ones who had never read a Fleming novel, soon linked the film's title with Blofeld. And it's hardly surprising.

 

Now, the surprise may be that we have a film called Spectre without Blofeld - the teaser trailer ends with a character in shadow who hints at Blofeld, but the rug may be pulled from all of us when the film appears and Oberhauser may well be....Oberhauser.

[Shrublands]

But if you have a film called Spectre, with the Spectre organisation and you have a Spectre meeting with the leader at the head of the table and he is simply called 'Oberhauser" throughout, people are going to say, 'yes, but he is still intended to be Blofeld' or 'odd they just didn't call him Blofeld'. 

[tdalton]

But if you have a film called Spectre, with the Spectre organisation and you have a Spectre meeting with the leader at the head of the table and he is simply called 'Oberhauser" throughout, people are going to say, 'yes, but he is still intended to be Blofeld' or 'odd they just didn't call him Blofeld'.

Agreed.

They also didn't do anything to curtail the speculation that Oberhauser is Blofeld with the trailer. Why further fuel all of that speculation by outright showing Waltz bathed in darkness like that when it's a very clear callback to how Blofeld's face was always hidden back in the early Connery films? It almost seems to me now that they want to keep that debate alive, as it gives the film some publicity, but in the end I'm not quite so sure that Oberhauser will turn out to be Blofeld. If Blofeld is in the film, though, I just hope that they don't have him turn out to be someone within MI6, like M or that new character Denbigh.

[Shrublands]

 If Blofeld is in the film, though, I just hope that they don't have him turn out to be someone within MI6, like M or that new character Denbigh.

 

 

This worries me too, for all sorts of reasons. Also when the dust settles, we'd be left with a situation where we have Christoph Waltz in a Bond film with Blofeld but he's not Blofeld just an elaborate red herring.

I think that would be a shame.  

[tdalton]

I think I would just about prefer that Blofeld didn't appear at all than have him turn out to be one of the characters we already know is in the film. All of them either tie directly to Bond (Oberhauser, M) or would continue some of the rather tired spy movie tropes of the past few years with the main bad guy turning out to be someone within the organization all along (Denbigh).

I think that they could get a lot of mileage out of making things personal for Bond through Oberhauser while still having Blofeld be someone who doesn't have any personal issues (yet) with Bond.

[Shrublands]

Would they really be daft enough to have it so that the actor who surprised everyone by turning out to be Moriarty at the end of the first season of Sherlock turn to be Blofeld at the end of this?

I can't believe they'd do anything so stupid. 

[tdalton]

Would they really be daft enough to have it so that the actor who surprised everyone by turning out to be Moriarty at the end of the first season of Sherlock turn to be Blofeld at the end of this?
I can't believe they'd do anything so stupid.

One would hope not.

They could go that route, though, and bank on the same American ignorance that led them to change the title of Licence to Kill. I can't say that I'd be surprised if they did it, especially since the spy genre as of late has made a living off of that kind of twist. Heck, Tom Cruise has made a ton of money on just that very plot twist, since it features heavily in the Mission: Impossible films.

[Shrublands]

I think it can only go like this, that within the context of the film, Oberhauser is also Blofeld but it's not sold as a surprise or twist. 

That said, the worry over Andrew Scott persists. 

[stromberg]

I don't expect Blofeld in this movie – maybe in the end, but we don't see his face. My guess is that Oberhauser is No.2 who starts a palace revolution against the current No.1 (Mr. White?). Like the Siamese fighting fish in FRWL, No.3 is waiting until his adversaries (No.1 and No.2) have exhausted themselves, then he strikes – classic Blofeld. He's been pulling the strings from behind. And that's where B25 kicks off...

 

Or would anyone be up for a Blofeld-is-a-codename theory?  

[x007AceOfSpades]

Well, remember how vehemently J.J. Abrams said that Benedict Cumberbatch was NOT playing Khan....

And we all know how that turned out.

[seawolfnyy]

Well, remember how vehemently J.J. Abrams said that Benedict Cumberbatch was NOT playing Khan....

And we all know how that turned out.

Or that Naomie Harris was really Moneypenny or Marion Cotillard was really Talia al Ghul in TDKR. Nothing stays hidden these days....

[tdalton]

I don't expect Blofeld in this movie – maybe in the end, but we don't see his face. My guess is that Oberhauser is No.2 who starts a palace revolution against the current No.1 (Mr. White?). Like the Siamese fighting fish in FRWL, No.3 is waiting until his adversaries (No.1 and No.2) have exhausted themselves, then he strikes – classic Blofeld. He's been pulling the strings from behind. And that's where B25 kicks off...

 

Hopefully this, or something like it, turns out to be the case.  Much better idea than having Oberhauser, Denbigh, or someone else turn out to be Blofeld using an alias to fool the audience.

[SecretAgentFan]

Absolutely.  I would be very disappointed if they wanted to pull that one on us.

[Guy Haines]

Actually, I think the playing off of White against Oberhauser with an unknown third party behind it all - and maybe Bond as the unwitting instrument of that third party? - might neatly solve the problem of "Who is Oberhauser?"

 

It would set up a new backstory to the new SPECTRE - not the creation of Blofeld but an amalgam of different groups, including Quantum, which ESB is waiting to assume control of. It would avoid an earlier connection to Bond - Oberhauser not being Blofeld, but still the young man 007 met in his early teens.

 

And it would set up the final film of the Craig era - unfinished business, because even if Oberhauser is defeated, SPECTRE is still out there and someone else is in charge of it.

[glidrose]

The more I think about it the more convinced I become that Oberhauser is Blofeld. That we're still debating it at this late stage - even those of us who've read the leaked material - proves the gambit is (to some extent) working.

[dirtymind]

 

I don't expect Blofeld in this movie – maybe in the end, but we don't see his face. My guess is that Oberhauser is No.2 who starts a palace revolution against the current No.1 (Mr. White?). Like the Siamese fighting fish in FRWL, No.3 is waiting until his adversaries (No.1 and No.2) have exhausted themselves, then he strikes – classic Blofeld. He's been pulling the strings from behind. And that's where B25 kicks off...

 

Hopefully this, or something like it, turns out to be the case.  Much better idea than having Oberhauser, Denbigh, or someone else turn out to be Blofeld using an alias to fool the audience.

 

 

I agree. I hope it turns out this way.

[Vauxhall]

The more I think about it the more convinced I become that Oberhauser is Blofeld. That we're still debating it at this late stage - even those of us who've read the leaked material - proves the gambit is (to some extent) working.

True. No matter what happens from here, I think it's fair to say they've drastically reworked who "Blofeld" is, and where he came from.

[Harmsway]

You can't have a film titled Spectre without featuring Blofeld in some capacity. Furthermore, Sam Mendes, who expressly refused to participate in a two-part Bond film, isn't going to simply make a film that's just a set-up for Bond 25. Make no mistake: Blofeld will appear, and he'll be central to the film.

[Shrublands]

You can't have a film titled Spectre without featuring Blofeld in some capacity. Furthermore, Sam Mendes, who expressly refused to participate in a two-part Bond film, isn't going to simply make a film that's just a set-up for Bond 25. Make no mistake: Blofeld will appear, and he'll be central to the film.

 

I agree, this has to be about Blofeld.

 

But I think the dropping the whole two part story stuff is a kind of smokescreen. I think the two parter idea got out and they really didn't want people to know exactly what that means.

 

I think Bond 24 and 25 are two parts of a story, but only in as far as Fleming's OHMSS and YOLT are connected, they tell the story of Bond's tragic experience with Blofeld.

I'm increasingly convinced that's what we have to look forward to in Spectre and Bond 25. There will be another 3 year gap and more talk from Mendes about finishing the story he started.