36 replies to this topic

[Pushkin]

If you take him at his word (at least what is said this interview), it does not look like Waltz is signed for Bond 25. I really hope there was an option for Bond 25 put into his contract and if not, I really do wonder what the Bond producers were thinking. I am all for a modern Blofeld, but I don't want to go through the "plastic surgery" gymnastics of old.

 

http://www.cinemable...swer-93317.html

 

[Vauxhall]

I've learned not to take Christoph Waltz at his word, but it's probably true - he's not signed on for the next one - but I'll be amazed if it hasn't even been brought up.

My view is quite simple: Blofeld either returns with Waltz next time around, or they move on to something else. I don't want them to go back to the days of old, and expect us to believe that Blofeld now looks like Idris Elba.

[AMC Hornet]

But wouldn't that be confusing if both Blofeld and Bond look like Idris Elba?

[Vauxhall]

But wouldn't that be confusing if both Blofeld and Bond look like Idris Elba?

Very.

But they are half brothers, of course.

[AMC Hornet]

"I'm Dougie! I'm Dougie!"

[George Kaplan]

I wonder if they could be going with the idea that Waltz shouldn't appear in each film as a direct opponent for Bond?  So the next film may still have Bond running into SPECTRE but not necessarily Blofeld.

[Vauxhall]

I wonder if they could be going with the idea that Waltz shouldn't appear in each film as a direct opponent for Bond?  So the next film may still have Bond running into SPECTRE but not necessarily Blofeld.

I think they could do that, if Waltz turns down the opportunity to come back. Plan A will almost certainly be securing the return of Waltz.

[seawolfnyy]

 

But wouldn't that be confusing if both Blofeld and Bond look like Idris Elba?

Very.

But they are half brothers, of course.

 

It would definitely sell me on that brothers backstory, at least.

[Shrublands]

In the interview he says nothing one way or the other. He sidesteps the question. He certainly does not rule it out and basically says he'd be up for it should the idea "make sense". 

Personally, I'd be very surprised if he is not part of Bond 25.

[stromberg]

 

I wonder if they could be going with the idea that Waltz shouldn't appear in each film as a direct opponent for Bond?  So the next film may still have Bond running into SPECTRE but not necessarily Blofeld.

I think they could do that, if Waltz turns down the opportunity to come back. Plan A will almost certainly be securing the return of Waltz.

 

Could turn out to be expensive...

 

There's still the option to pull of a Eric Pohlman or Anthony Dawson version, with a Largo type as the main villain. Or Irma Bunt.

[Harmsway]

He dodges the question. I'm sure they'll get him back if they want to bring him back.

[Mr. White's Son]

Hi everyone, this is my fist-ever contribution but I'm a longtime Bond fan who has been enjoying the thoughtful, informed commentary on this site. Like many of you, I was a little troubled by the ending of Spectre. For that reason, I'd love to hear what you have to say about this, perhaps the most persuasive interpretation of the film's conclusion, by University of Michigan professor (and Bond fan) Juan Cole, on the ending of Spectre:

 

http://www.juancole....es-snowden.html

 

The key takeaway: "We live in a world where men of principle such as Cmdr. Bond can barely stay in a Western intelligence agency, given their betrayal of democracy and basic judicial principle."

 

That's a "basic judicial principle" definitely underlined and upheld by Fiennes' M in his arrest of Blofeld, an act I first found odd for the conclusion of an action film, but which makes sense in the context above.

 

And for background:

 

https://en.wikipedia.../wiki/Five_Eyes

Edited by Mr. White's Son, 11 November 2015 - 08:44 PM.

[Dustin]

I'm pretty sure Waltz as Blofeld will be back. Just not necessarily in BOND 25 if that's not possible. Spectre in modern times has become a huge organisation, no longer the cozy club Fleming described. At this Illuminati party in Rome alone it looked like last time I was at the Daimler AG shareholders meeting - not counting aspiring staffers like Hinx who probably have no business talking with the grownups, I doubt they were all wiped out in that Morocco explosion. With the remaining executives and directors of that kraken you could make easily a string of films while Blofeld matures in some ultra-security prison with Lex Luthor and the Joker...

[Dustin]

http://www.juancole....es-snowden.html

Welcome to CBn and thanks for sharing this article.

However, I'm sorry but I stopped reading after 'cryptofacist' - not because I was a big fan of the politicians mentioned, I just don't think it's good policy to interpret too much into - at best - a couple of hours of lightweight entertainment. Yes, there is of course a political element in most Bond films to be found. But at the heart these films are adventure stories like the Iliad, the Odyssey or sage of dragonslayer Saint George - it's about good versus bad and any form of differentiation or detail is only introduced to get adults over the fact that they are watching a very basic fairy tale. I really don't believe there went more thought into the script of SPECTRE than was absolutely necessary to get the thing off the ground and land it halfway intact two and a half hours later.

[Pushkin]

Welcome to the forum White's Son. 

 

I read through the article you posted the link to and had a few thoughts:

 

Clearly the film is dealing with the tension of governments monitoring civilians for security purposes and the basic rights of a democratic society. But this is only a subplot to the movie IMHO. While there have always been some limits as to what the character James Bond is prepared to do for King and Country (both in film and in the novels), he has also been willing to do some pretty nasty things.

 

I think its a stretch to suggest James Bond is a more muscular version of Edward Snowden. IMHO, Bond would never be prepared to take anything resembling the steps that Snowden did and in my mind, the tension between democracy and eaves dropping is one that M is most focussed on. 

[thecasinoroyale]

If they waste an actor like Waltz, or a character like Blofed and group like SPECTRE after so much legal battles preventing them from being used then I'll be disgusted with the way EON are handling Bond.

 

I'm sure they wont, but you never know. Everything from Blofeld's persistent watching of "baby brother" walking away unharmed again isn't going to simply be forgotten for 'Bond 25'. Blofeld and SPECTRE should be very much alive and a threat, especially now their leader is under MI6 custody.

 

I think we need our new Largo or someone equally as nasty to lead a SPECTRE assault on holding London or major cities to ransom for the release of Blofeld before all hell breaks loose, and only one man can find them and save the world - James Bond.

 

Swann or Queen and Country. Make your mind up 007.

 

"But James, I need you!" "So does England." C'mon Craig, have some of THAT attutide next time.

[coco1997]

I think we need our new Largo or someone equally as nasty to lead a SPECTRE assault on holding London or major cities to ransom for the release of Blofeld before all hell breaks loose, and only one man can find them and save the world - James Bond.

 

I think we've seen enough of London in the last couple films.

[thecasinoroyale]

I totally agree, but with the calibre of cast making up MI6 now I think London will feature a bit more to cater for their screen time. If London IS used, I want little to no action set there because it's turning the city into a CG action playground!

 

Blofeld will be in London for 'Bond 25' of course, but doesn't mean the action has to be. Let's target Washington, Beijing, Moscow...get SPECTRE going after the other international cities and cause some mayhem there without bringing it home for another explosive finale on Bond's doorstep.

[SecretAgentFan]

 

I think we need our new Largo or someone equally as nasty to lead a SPECTRE assault on holding London or major cities to ransom for the release of Blofeld before all hell breaks loose, and only one man can find them and save the world - James Bond.

 

I think we've seen enough of London in the last couple films.

 

 

I agree.  More exotic places - or another one location Bond (brings down the production costs as well).

[AMC Hornet]

SPECTRE attacking other cities until England releases Blofeld could certainly bring pressure onto HMG from her allies...

[Mr. White's Son]

Perhaps I take it too seriously. And I don’t wish to push this Cole interpretation too far. I think, of course, that there are many ways of viewing Spectre and I don’t wish to exclude them. I'm hardly "political" myself but I am a long-time Bond fan whose enthusiasm for the series has definitely been reinvigorated with the Craig films. We might agree that one of the distinctive factors in these films is their greater engagement with a recognizable reality both within Bond (broadly speaking, the psychological) and around Bond (again, broadly speaking, the socio-political world), all within the overarching confines of a traditionally-delimited genre often dismissed as escapist fantasy.

 

Arguably, it is this very tension (reality vs. fantasy) that make’s Craig’s films--especially, Spectre--both so fascinating and problematic (in the positive sense of provoking so many questions, including the real “eye-opener” of Nine/Five Eyes). I can appreciate—and even applaud—one’s desire to avoid “the political,” if by that word we mean the typical squabbling that we encounter in the partisan debate of the U.S. Republican vs. Democrat model. I’m not interested in that at all; but rather in the word “political” as used by the ancient Greeks (and, Dustin, I mention this because I’m loving your references to the mythos of Bond’s antecedents) – i.e. of “the polis,” or “the city,” so much of which involves the heroes of Greek drama delineated by their interaction with the civilized world around them, partly in the service of entertainment and partly in the service of civic instruction. [What is mythology to us, was, of course, religion to them—please excuse the pedantry.]

 

Perhaps I’m wrong, but it’s barely conceivable that the Connery/Moore Bonds would have “gone rogue” in the manner of Craig (or even Dalton before him). How many times, now? I’ve read many complaints from fans regarding this; especially in their desire to see Bond receive from M a “normal” mission. But isn’t it interesting that not only does Bond go rogue, again, in Spectre, but so do, essentially, M (most ironically) and Q (and Moneypenny and Tanner?). It’s the whole crew this time! Crucially, they all have had to go rogue in order to re-establish British Intelligence within a legal (and moral) framework by wresting it away from “C” (and by extension, Blofeld, himself). Can this be dismissed as merely a subplot tenuously connected the world around us? If you wish, but if so it’s given far more weight than any subplot in the history of the franchise. So much so, that in many ways, M, as much as Bond, is the true hero of Spectre. 

Welcome to the forum White's Son. 

 

I read through the article you posted the link to and had a few thoughts:

 

Clearly the film is dealing with the tension of governments monitoring civilians for security purposes and the basic rights of a democratic society. But this is only a subplot to the movie IMHO. While there have always been some limits as to what the character James Bond is prepared to do for King and Country (both in film and in the novels), he has also been willing to do some pretty nasty things.

 

I think its a stretch to suggest James Bond is a more muscular version of Edward Snowden. IMHO, Bond would never be prepared to take anything resembling the steps that Snowden did and in my mind, the tension between democracy and eaves dropping is one that M is most focussed on. 

 

 

 

http://www.juancole....es-snowden.html

 

Welcome to CBn and thanks for sharing this article.

However, I'm sorry but I stopped reading after 'cryptofacist' - not because I was a big fan of the politicians mentioned, I just don't think it's good policy to interpret too much into - at best - a couple of hours of lightweight entertainment. Yes, there is of course a political element in most Bond films to be found. But at the heart these films are adventure stories like the Iliad, the Odyssey or sage of dragonslayer Saint George - it's about good versus bad and any form of differentiation or detail is only introduced to get adults over the fact that they are watching a very basic fairy tale. I really don't believe there went more thought into the script of SPECTRE than was absolutely necessary to get the thing off the ground and land it halfway intact two and a half hours later.

 

[RMc2]

If they waste an actor like Waltz, or a character like Blofed and group like SPECTRE after so much legal battles preventing them from being used then I'll be disgusted with the way EON are handling Bond.

 

I'm sure they wont, but you never know. Everything from Blofeld's persistent watching of "baby brother" walking away unharmed again isn't going to simply be forgotten for 'Bond 25'. Blofeld and SPECTRE should be very much alive and a threat, especially now their leader is under MI6 custody.

 

I think we need our new Largo or someone equally as nasty to lead a SPECTRE assault on holding London or major cities to ransom for the release of Blofeld before all hell breaks loose, and only one man can find them and save the world - James Bond.

 

Swann or Queen and Country. Make your mind up 007.

 

"But James, I need you!" "So does England." C'mon Craig, have some of THAT attutide next time.

 

I'd prefer a Bond-less PTS where Blofeld escapes from MI6 in very tense, but relatively low-key style (I want more espionage and less 'spectacle' in Bond 25; start small and tense, build up the thriller until the action finale; otherwise we risk another EON-goes-overboard fiasco). Have Blofeld mercilessly strangle his guard - show us that sadistic side from the get-go, and make up for his hands-off nature in SP.

 

As for Blofeld's lacky - Hinx can return, and I'd like Irma Bunt to be the new henchperson. They'd need to be careful, though; SP already struggles with 3 villains, Bond, 2 Bond girls and the MI6 team.

Edited by RMc2, 12 November 2015 - 05:43 PM.

[Dustin]

Perhaps I take it too seriously. And I don’t wish to push this Cole interpretation too far. I think, of course, that there are many ways of viewing Spectre and I don’t wish to exclude them. I'm hardly "political" myself but I am a long-time Bond fan whose enthusiasm for the series has definitely been reinvigorated with the Craig films. We might agree that one of the distinctive factors in these films is their greater engagement with a recognizable reality both within Bond (broadly speaking, the psychological) and around Bond (again, broadly speaking, the socio-political world), all within the overarching confines of a traditionally-delimited genre often dismissed as escapist fantasy.

Arguably, it is this very tension (reality vs. fantasy) that make’s Craig’s films--especially, Spectre--both so fascinating and problematic (in the positive sense of provoking so many questions, including the real “eye-opener” of Nine/Five Eyes). I can appreciate—and even applaud—one’s desire to avoid “the political,” if by that word we mean the typical squabbling that we encounter in the partisan debate of the U.S. Republican vs. Democrat model. I’m not interested in that at all; but rather in the word “political” as used by the ancient Greeks (and, Dustin, I mention this because I’m loving your references to the mythos of Bond’s antecedents) – i.e. of “the polis,” or “the city,” so much of which involves the heroes of Greek drama delineated by their interaction with the civilized world around them, partly in the service of entertainment and partly in the service of civic instruction. [What is mythology to us, was, of course, religion to them—please excuse the pedantry.]

Perhaps I’m wrong, but it’s barely conceivable that the Connery/Moore Bonds would have “gone rogue” in the manner of Craig (or even Dalton before him). How many times, now? I’ve read many complaints from fans regarding this; especially in their desire to see Bond receive from M a “normal” mission. But isn’t it interesting that not only does Bond go rogue, again, in Spectre, but so do, essentially, M (most ironically) and Q (and Moneypenny and Tanner?). It’s the whole crew this time! Crucially, they all have had to go rogue in order to re-establish British Intelligence within a legal (and moral) framework by wresting it away from “C” (and by extension, Blofeld, himself). Can this be dismissed as merely a subplot tenuously connected the world around us? If you wish, but if so it’s given far more weight than any subplot in the history of the franchise. So much so, that in many ways, M, as much as Bond, is the true hero of Spectre.

Oh, there have no doubt been vast changes in society since the days of Fleming. Wars were fought since, undeclared. Some wars were declared based on lies and projected profits. And last not least a PotUS was assassinated and few people believe the case was investigated as it should have been. To name just a few US issues, other countries went through similar or worse things. Blind obedience nowadays is rightfully viewed with scepticism.

In short, society - Western society at any rate - suffers from a massive crisis of its institutions and its people's belief in these, as well as from values that are constantly challenged by its own leaders, that much is evident.

Consequently, Bond's world - which mirrors ours in terms of the general state of affairs - must show similar signs of entropy in its institutions. Unless, that is, we want it to be entirely fictional and about as relevant as Steamboat Willie for our time.

But the fact is, apart from some lip service in SPECTRE, the theme of Big Brother and the nineheaded monster Denbigh was about to create was not once really used with any consequence. Actually, the very article you linked explained the dangers in a few sentences more detailed than the entire film does in over two and a half hours.

Questions like 'quis custodiet ipsos custodes' are mentioned - and answered with the revolt of the entire home team. But we weren't treated to the sight of a blackmailed character, didn't even get a sniff of the true potential of this amassed information in the hands of people nobody actually voted into their offices. So the whole Nine Eyes treatment was hardly more than a McGuffin to set things in motion. It's a theme that is in the air now, also because it's a global shift towards we-don't-know-what yet. But SPECTRE uses it only in a very broad sense and Bond himself doesn't quit because of fundamental differences with the general nature of his duty.

He quits because he's simply had enough.

[RMc2]

 

Perhaps I take it too seriously. And I don’t wish to push this Cole interpretation too far. I think, of course, that there are many ways of viewing Spectre and I don’t wish to exclude them. I'm hardly "political" myself but I am a long-time Bond fan whose enthusiasm for the series has definitely been reinvigorated with the Craig films. We might agree that one of the distinctive factors in these films is their greater engagement with a recognizable reality both within Bond (broadly speaking, the psychological) and around Bond (again, broadly speaking, the socio-political world), all within the overarching confines of a traditionally-delimited genre often dismissed as escapist fantasy.

Arguably, it is this very tension (reality vs. fantasy) that make’s Craig’s films--especially, Spectre--both so fascinating and problematic (in the positive sense of provoking so many questions, including the real “eye-opener” of Nine/Five Eyes). I can appreciate—and even applaud—one’s desire to avoid “the political,” if by that word we mean the typical squabbling that we encounter in the partisan debate of the U.S. Republican vs. Democrat model. I’m not interested in that at all; but rather in the word “political” as used by the ancient Greeks (and, Dustin, I mention this because I’m loving your references to the mythos of Bond’s antecedents) – i.e. of “the polis,” or “the city,” so much of which involves the heroes of Greek drama delineated by their interaction with the civilized world around them, partly in the service of entertainment and partly in the service of civic instruction. [What is mythology to us, was, of course, religion to them—please excuse the pedantry.]

Perhaps I’m wrong, but it’s barely conceivable that the Connery/Moore Bonds would have “gone rogue” in the manner of Craig (or even Dalton before him). How many times, now? I’ve read many complaints from fans regarding this; especially in their desire to see Bond receive from M a “normal” mission. But isn’t it interesting that not only does Bond go rogue, again, in Spectre, but so do, essentially, M (most ironically) and Q (and Moneypenny and Tanner?). It’s the whole crew this time! Crucially, they all have had to go rogue in order to re-establish British Intelligence within a legal (and moral) framework by wresting it away from “C” (and by extension, Blofeld, himself). Can this be dismissed as merely a subplot tenuously connected the world around us? If you wish, but if so it’s given far more weight than any subplot in the history of the franchise. So much so, that in many ways, M, as much as Bond, is the true hero of Spectre.
 

Oh, there have no doubt been vast changes in society since the days of Fleming. Wars were fought since, undeclared. Some wars were declared based on lies and projected profits. And last not least a PotUS was assassinated and few people believe the case was investigated as it should have been. To name just a few US issues, other countries went through similar or worse things. Blind obedience nowadays is rightfully viewed with scepticism.

In short, society - Western society at any rate - suffers from a massive crisis of its institutions and its people's belief in these, as well as from values that are constantly challenged by its own leaders, that much is evident.

Consequently, Bond's world - which mirrors ours in terms of the general state of affairs - must show similar signs of entropy in its institutions. Unless, that is, we want it to be entirely fictional and about as relevant as Steamboat Willie for our time.

But the fact is, apart from some lip service in SPECTRE, the theme of Big Brother and the nineheaded monster Denbigh was about to create was not once really used with any consequence. Actually, the very article you linked explained the dangers in a few sentences more detailed than the entire film does in over two and a half hours.

Questions like 'quis custodiet ipsos custodes' are mentioned - and answered with the revolt of the entire home team. But we weren't treated to the sight of a blackmailed character, didn't even get a sniff of the true potential of this amassed information in the hands of people nobody actually voted into their offices. So the whole Nine Eyes treatment was hardly more than a McGuffin to set things in motion. It's a theme that is in the air now, also because it's a global shift towards we-don't-know-what yet. But SPECTRE uses it only in a very broad sense and Bond himself doesn't quit because of fundamental differences with the general nature of his duty.

He quits because he's simply had enough.

 

 

Well said, Dustin!

[Mr. White's Son]

Compelling, however:

We do see surveillance footage of White's suicide used by Blofeld to torture Swann emotionally while demonstrating his power over a physically ineffectual Bond; and we hear the recorded exchange between Bond and Moneypenny used by "C" to undermine both M and the "00" program. Are there more examples? Certainly we see evidence of both paranoia (such as the mouse episode, however funny) and legitimate fear (in the restaurant scene between M, MP and Q) induced by an omniscient state of surveillance. So I can't agree on that point.

For some it's a mess, but I see a lot of symbolism, suggestion, ambiguity and doubling effects in the London conclusion. This is something almost unheard of in the Bond canon: a prolonged, mostly visual means of demonstrating character, meaning and motivation. Is Spectre the most purely visual of all Bond films? Among many examples, I love that standing over Blofeld on the bridge, Bond empties the chamber of his gun in a reflection of Swann's identical act in the "training" episode on the train.

I agree that Bond's reason for quitting is predominantly personal (with several examples of Swann as the catalyst for his choice to do so). Certainly Bond must be physically and emotionally exhausted. And with Swann he now has the possibility of a life beyond--or at least a break from--his part-hitman, part-monk existence.

But consider that maybe his reasons for quitting are not entirely personal. I think we're meant to see Bond/Blofeld as a reflection of each other, most obviously in the shattered glass scene with Blofeld as traditional villain archetype empowered by the understanding, embodiment, and articulation of Bond's own emotional state, which our hero seems unable or unwilling to comprehend himself. In the husk of the MI6 building, Blofeld says: "Look around you, James, everything you believed in, a ruin." Does that not at least suggest an accompanying loss of faith in the old verities?

Edited by Mr. White's Son, 13 November 2015 - 07:22 AM.

[DaveBond21]

I think Waltz will be in the next one as Blofeld, who can escape from anywhere as easy as Silva can.

 

Madeline won't be, because surely she was just like all the other girls 007 ends up with at the end of movies - we never see them again.

 

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

[thecasinoroyale]

Unless she joins Bond for lunch in a gondola on the Thames but then he gets a phone call in the Aston Martin....  back to service! 

[Guy Haines]

If you take him at his word (at least what is said this interview), it does not look like Waltz is signed for Bond 25. I really hope there was an option for Bond 25 put into his contract and if not, I really do wonder what the Bond producers were thinking. I am all for a modern Blofeld, but I don't want to go through the "plastic surgery" gymnastics of old.

http://www.cinemable...swer-93317.html

Except that Blofeld changing his appearance is consistent with the character in the original books. In Thunderball he was 18 stone of muscle gone to fat - but by the time we get to OHMSS he has slimmed down considerably and changed his hair style. Bond has a description of him, having never met the character previously - but cannot believe that "the Count" is Blofeld.

And there you have the get out clause for Bond 25 if Blofeld returns but Christoph Waltz doesn't - that and the facial disfigurement which has to be fixed. So don't be surprised if ESB is played by someone else - when it came to Ernst Stavro Blofeld's identity, only the eyes have it! ;-)

[Dustin]

Compelling, however:

We do see surveillance footage of White's suicide used by Blofeld to torture Swann emotionally while demonstrating his power over a physically ineffectual Bond; and we hear the recorded exchange between Bond and Moneypenny used by "C" to undermine both M and the "00" program. Are there more examples? Certainly we see evidence of both paranoia (such as the mouse episode, however funny) and legitimate fear (in the restaurant scene between M, MP and Q) induced by an omniscient state of surveillance. So I can't agree on that point.

There is no doubt the element of surveillance is there - but is it really more prominent than it would be in any espionage-themed tale? White monitored his own hideout, taping the footage. At the time it was likely the last thing on his mind to switch that off. But responsible for the footage turning up in Bloferhauser's hands was Bond because he didn't take the time to render the equipment inside that hut useless. And Moneypenny also isn't the classical victim of domestic spying. She's working in the trade and should - like Bond - calculate that there's always a chance of the wrong set of ears listening in. To me these two examples don't do much to underline the importance of the Big Brother subplot.

It would be different if Moneypenny and her boss had been taken into custody on the spot and detained to some camp in the Brecon Beacons, or if maybe they had shown how Q is blackmailed with stuff from his own hard drive to work along with this C type. But none of that happens. When the car with Bond and M is intercepted I was halfway expecting some coup taking place to ensure that Nine Eyes stays on track. But that too was not to be. If anything the way in which South Africa was made to change its opinion on the deal was painfully predictable. Any halfway decent executive in the intelligence trade would look in C's direction after the convenient terror attack.

For some it's a mess, but I see a lot of symbolism, suggestion, ambiguity and doubling effects in the London conclusion. This is something almost unheard of in the Bond canon: a prolonged, mostly visual means of demonstrating character, meaning and motivation. Is Spectre the most purely visual of all Bond films? Among many examples, I love that standing over Blofeld on the bridge, Bond empties the chamber of his gun in a reflection of Swann's identical act in the "training" episode on the train.

I agree that Bond's reason for quitting is predominantly personal (with several examples of Swann as the catalyst for his choice to do so). Certainly Bond must be physically and emotionally exhausted. And with Swann he now has the possibility of a life beyond--or at least a break from--his part-hitman, part-monk existence.

But consider that maybe his reasons for quitting are not entirely personal. I think we're meant to see Bond/Blofeld as a reflection of each other, most obviously in the shattered glass scene with Blofeld as traditional villain archetype empowered by the understanding, embodiment, and articulation of Bond's own emotional state, which our hero seems unable or unwilling to comprehend himself. In the husk of the MI6 building, Blofeld says: "Look around you, James, everything you believed in, a ruin." Does that not at least suggest an accompanying loss of faith in the old verities?

That's one of the things that didn't work for me, probably because I always associate the Vauxhall SIS building with Brosnan, not with Craig. If memory serves he was only once in QOS shown inside what I suppose was meant to be this building. I actually have trouble picturing him in one of its offices.

Otherwise, yes, SPECTRE is surely a very visual film with plenty of symbolism, much in the manner we've come to expect from a Craig Bond. As for the loss of faith - I would argue that began long before SPECTRE. Craig was always the Bond with the most cynical outlook on his profession. I cannot for the life of me imagine one of the others breaking into M's home or telling her the mistake to make him a 00 agent would soon correct itself in all likelihood. Also there are numerous lines of dialogue that point to a most pragmatic worldview, unhindered by any form of ideology. If there is any trust in institutions on display in Craig Bond's world it's usually grounded not on faith in the institutions themselves. Bond trusts the people inside them; they are the reason he's risking his life, not a flag or some capital letters or some abstract notion of whatever it is that drives people like him. He's doing it for the people, like taking orders from M's grave. Like taking her with him up to Scotland. Like quitting the first time for Vesper.

[Pushkin]

 

If you take him at his word (at least what is said this interview), it does not look like Waltz is signed for Bond 25. I really hope there was an option for Bond 25 put into his contract and if not, I really do wonder what the Bond producers were thinking. I am all for a modern Blofeld, but I don't want to go through the "plastic surgery" gymnastics of old.

http://www.cinemable...swer-93317.html

Except that Blofeld changing his appearance is consistent with the character in the original books. In Thunderball he was 18 stone of muscle gone to fat - but by the time we get to OHMSS he has slimmed down considerably and changed his hair style. Bond has a description of him, having never met the character previously - but cannot believe that "the Count" is Blofeld.

And there you have the get out clause for Bond 25 if Blofeld returns but Christoph Waltz doesn't - that and the facial disfigurement which has to be fixed. So don't be surprised if ESB is played by someone else - when it came to Ernst Stavro Blofeld's identity, only the eyes have it! ;-)

 

 

I had forgotten that but would still be against it. If Waltz does not come back, I don't want to see Blofeld in the Craig movies. It just does not work in today's world I think. But to each his/her own.