93 replies to this topic

[Surrie]

 

Agreed. But IMO Seydoux closely followed.

 

As far as I'm concerned, Seydoux makes SPECTRE what it is.  I can't see myself getting nearly as much enjoyment out of the film as I did if she hadn't been cast as Swann. 

 

 

You're right about that. She portrayed the character so well, it certainly paid off in this respect to cast an actress of her calibre. 

[SecretAgentFan]

While I liked her I have to say that her portrayal of the character - as any actor´s portrayal of any character - depended on what the script offered her and how the director chose to lead her.

 

The script offered her certain things:

 

- a certain defensive coldness in order to protect her inner sadness about her father

 

- initative (when she defends herself in the car)

 

- humour (when she turns down Bond at first in the hotel)

 

Afterwards, she is mainly the damsel in distress.  She does protect herself again when she denies to follow Bond in London.  But then its damsel in distress again who can´t wait to be reunited with Bond, not knowing what he is about to choose on the bridge.

 

So, I don´t see a lot that diffentiates her from previous Bond girls.  Or what Seydoux could do differently from them.

 

In fact, her character is symptomatic for the whole film: lots of potential, great start - and then losing intent and courage.

[Surrie]

While I liked her I have to say that her portrayal of the character - as any actor´s portrayal of any character - depended on what the script offered her and how the director chose to lead her.

 

The script offered her certain things:

 

- a certain defensive coldness in order to protect her inner sadness about her father

 

- initative (when she defends herself in the car)

 

- humour (when she turns down Bond at first in the hotel)

 

Afterwards, she is mainly the damsel in distress.  She does protect herself again when she denies to follow Bond in London.  But then its damsel in distress again who can´t wait to be reunited with Bond, not knowing what he is about to choose on the bridge.

 

So, I don´t see a lot that diffentiates her from previous Bond girls.  Or what Seydoux could do differently from them.

 

In fact, her character is symptomatic for the whole film: lots of potential, great start - and then losing intent and courage.

 

Whether another actress could have worked with the above to the same degree that Seydoux did is more the point I was trying to make. She did the best she could with the constraints of the script, and I would struggle to think of another current actress who would have elevated Swann like she did. 

[tdalton]

 

 

Whether another actress could have worked with the above to the same degree that Seydoux did is more the point I was trying to make. She did the best she could with the constraints of the script, and I would struggle to think of another current actress who would have elevated Swann like she did. 

 

 

Exactly.  Swann, just like most of the other parts in SPECTRE, is poorly written.  Seydoux brings more to it than just what is written on the page.  The script in no way earns the film's final moment, with the two of them driving off together, nor does it earn Swann's "I love you" during the torture sequence, but Seydoux makes both moments believable.  

[Surrie]

 

 

 

Whether another actress could have worked with the above to the same degree that Seydoux did is more the point I was trying to make. She did the best she could with the constraints of the script, and I would struggle to think of another current actress who would have elevated Swann like she did. 

 

 

Exactly.  Swann, just like most of the other parts in SPECTRE, is poorly written.  Seydoux brings more to it than just what is written on the page.  The script in no way earns the film's final moment, with the two of them driving off together, nor does it earn Swann's "I love you" during the torture sequence, but Seydoux makes both moments believable.  

 

 

Sign of a great actress - just a shame the script wasn't stronger for her. Based solely on her performance in SPECTRE is the reason I would be keen for her to come back in BOND 25... but they need to create an excellent story and tight script to warrant this for the masses. 

[Bucky]

Whether another actress could have worked with the above to the same degree that Seydoux did is more the point I was trying to make. She did the best she could with the constraints of the script, and I would struggle to think of another current actress who would have elevated Swann like she did.

 
Exactly.  Swann, just like most of the other parts in SPECTRE, is poorly written.  Seydoux brings more to it than just what is written on the page.  The script in no way earns the film's final moment, with the two of them driving off together, nor does it earn Swann's "I love you" during the torture sequence, but Seydoux makes both moments believable.

 
Sign of a great actress - just a shame the script wasn't stronger for her. Based solely on her performance in SPECTRE is the reason I would be keen for her to come back in BOND 25... but they need to create an excellent story and tight script to warrant this for the masses.

Agreed. The character was not very well written but I was totally charmed by her performance. This is also why I hope they don't go down the Tracy path with her because I really want to see her character developed further.

[tdalton]

 

 

 

Whether another actress could have worked with the above to the same degree that Seydoux did is more the point I was trying to make. She did the best she could with the constraints of the script, and I would struggle to think of another current actress who would have elevated Swann like she did.

 
Exactly.  Swann, just like most of the other parts in SPECTRE, is poorly written.  Seydoux brings more to it than just what is written on the page.  The script in no way earns the film's final moment, with the two of them driving off together, nor does it earn Swann's "I love you" during the torture sequence, but Seydoux makes both moments believable.

 
Sign of a great actress - just a shame the script wasn't stronger for her. Based solely on her performance in SPECTRE is the reason I would be keen for her to come back in BOND 25... but they need to create an excellent story and tight script to warrant this for the masses.

Agreed. The character was not very well written but I was totally charmed by her performance. This is also why I hope they don't go down the Tracy path with her because I really want to see her character developed further.

 

 

Agreed.  Sadly, I don't think we'll get that opportunity.  Either they'll kill off the Swann character very early in Bond 25 (or perhaps even off screen) or they'll just drop her altogether.  It's a shame, but given the lack of foresight that EON seems to have these days, it's almost certainly where we're headed.

[Surrie]

 

 

 

 

Whether another actress could have worked with the above to the same degree that Seydoux did is more the point I was trying to make. She did the best she could with the constraints of the script, and I would struggle to think of another current actress who would have elevated Swann like she did.

 
Exactly.  Swann, just like most of the other parts in SPECTRE, is poorly written.  Seydoux brings more to it than just what is written on the page.  The script in no way earns the film's final moment, with the two of them driving off together, nor does it earn Swann's "I love you" during the torture sequence, but Seydoux makes both moments believable.

 
Sign of a great actress - just a shame the script wasn't stronger for her. Based solely on her performance in SPECTRE is the reason I would be keen for her to come back in BOND 25... but they need to create an excellent story and tight script to warrant this for the masses.

Agreed. The character was not very well written but I was totally charmed by her performance. This is also why I hope they don't go down the Tracy path with her because I really want to see her character developed further.

 

 

Agreed.  Sadly, I don't think we'll get that opportunity.  Either they'll kill off the Swann character very early in Bond 25 (or perhaps even off screen) or they'll just drop her altogether.  It's a shame, but given the lack of foresight that EON seems to have these days, it's almost certainly where we're headed.

 

 

Shame indeed. I'd welcome the opportunity to watch Seydoux develop the character of Swann further - wasted opportunity if we don't see her again. Although, it would appear, looking at past EON trends, that we won't be pleased if they go down either route. In all honesty, I'd prefer them to drop her and not mention her again rather kill her off, and discount all that she stood for in SPECTRE.

[SecretAgentFan]

I´m not sure whether the appreciation for Seydoux is purely subjective.  

 

Personally, I do find her attractive and notice that maybe because of that I consider her acting in SPECTRE pretty well.  But when I try to be objective I can´t think of one scene in which her acting actually was beyond servicable.

 

Full disclosure: most acting in SPECTRE was nothing beyond servicable, IMO.

[tdalton]

Her acting rises above being serviceable because she raises the character of Swann above what the writers gave her.  It's a paper thin character that is nothing more than an homage to Dianna Rigg's Teresa.  The script practically beats the audience over the head with the similarities.  Her "I love you" isn't earned by the screenwriters, nor is their drive off into the sunset, presumably to start a new life away from "the game".  I didn't find myself questioning those moments, though, because she made me believe that Bond would leave with her.  

 

Maybe some of that is because Blofeld was a lame villain.  When Bond is standing over him on the bridge with Swann watching, my only thought was "toss the gun" and leave with her.  I didn't care about whether Bond put a bullet in Blofeld's head.  I did care, though, about the resolution of the Bond/Swann arc at the end of the film.  I can't say I cared about it because of the quality of the script, because the story in SPECTRE is severely lacking.  I cared about it because the performance was strong and made up for the shortcomings in the script.  

 

Waltz had a similar opportunity to make up for a paper-thin character and bring more to the film than what was on the page.  Instead, he decided to stick with the Hans Landa schtick and make Blofeld into a caricature just this side of Dr. Evil.  

[AMC Hornet]

For better or worse, the (re)introduction of SPECTRE is done. Everything discussed above may appear in the next film.

 

Or not.

[New Digs]

 

Casting Oscar-winning Waltz (especially after Bardem's turn as the villain in SF) was a coup for the series. But not allowing him to then paint on a blank canvas and create his Blofeld for this reboot generation, is negligence of the highest order. Shadowy rooms and scars completely removed the room for any kind of performance beyond a Christmas pantomime villain.

According to the tabloids, and this thread's title, Christopher Waltz could return.BUT... To my mind it should read: Waltz could return. WHY?

Botched-feld! would be my tabloid headline........

 

 

Absolutely.

 

I look back at CR and QoS and I felt they were really setting something up fantastic with the Quantum organisation. Le Chiffre was an excellent villain who desperately needed money to keep his life, and with Mr White coming in and shooting him showed a potentially formidable intriguing threat. With Greene we saw another side of how Quantum operated, in keeping with the tone of the previous film. We are told Bond learned something about Quantum at the end, as Greene says 'I answered your questions' etc. If anything was to be built from these two movies in terms of a villains organisation it should have been a development of this. Instead we got some feeble villain announcing the word 'cuckoo' in a film more concerned with reincarnations of a character that has been parodied to death by Austin Powers. 

 

 

Full disclosure: most acting in SPECTRE was nothing beyond servicable, IMO.

 

I would agree with the exception of Craig, who I though was excellent as was Andrew Scott. 

I didn't care about whether Bond put a bullet in Blofeld's head.  I did care, though, about the resolution of the Bond/Swann arc at the end of the film.  I can't say I cared about it because of the quality of the script, because the story in SPECTRE is severely lacking.  I cared about it because the performance was strong and made up for the shortcomings in the script.  

 

 

 

I agree the story is lacking. The Swann character was about as essential to the plot as Denise Richards in TWINE. This didn't matter so much in TWINE cause it was a different kind of movie, but I expected more from Spectre than what we eventually got in terms of story. 

[tdalton]

I would disagree with regards to the Richards/Seydoux comparison.  I think that Swann is fairly essential to the plot, at least in terms of getting everything to the endpoint on the bridge where Bond is forced to make his choice.  Combine that with the fact that I think Seydoux is the film's saving grace, and I can't really agree with the comparison.  

 

Conversely, I find the Christmas Jones character to be an active detriment to The World is Not Enough.  The character of Jones robs the film of one of its central, and more interesting, premises, which is Bond falling in love with the villain.  Had they removed Jones entirely from the film and used the time Bond spends with her to beef up the initial love story between Bond and Elektra, the film had a chance to be something special.  The inclusion of Jones ruins all of that.  

[New Digs]

I wouldn't disagree on Seydoux's acting chops or her overall contribution to the film on that basis. I felt she was written for 'emotion' and 'character' without fully being interwoven into any kind of real story, which I felt was lacking from the film.

[tdalton]

I wouldn't disagree on Seydoux's acting chops or her overall contribution to the film on that basis. I felt she was written for 'emotion' and 'character' without fully being interwoven into any kind of real story, which I felt was lacking from the film.

 

Understood.  I would agree with that.

[Surrie]

I would disagree with regards to the Richards/Seydoux comparison.  I think that Swann is fairly essential to the plot, at least in terms of getting everything to the endpoint on the bridge where Bond is forced to make his choice.  Combine that with the fact that I think Seydoux is the film's saving grace, and I can't really agree with the comparison.  

 

Conversely, I find the Christmas Jones character to be an active detriment to The World is Not Enough.  The character of Jones robs the film of one of its central, and more interesting, premises, which is Bond falling in love with the villain.  Had they removed Jones entirely from the film and used the time Bond spends with her to beef up the initial love story between Bond and Elektra, the film had a chance to be something special.  The inclusion of Jones ruins all of that.  

 

I don't think there could be two more different Bond girls if we discussed it all night! As tdalton said, the whole story of SPECTRE hinged on Swann! Jones was an after-thought in TWINE and an addition the producers thought they had to include. Brosnan's era especially saw them stuck in this type of 'Bond girl' formula. 

[DaveBond21]

 

 

If Waltz is willing to sign on for two more, then my dream scenario could become a reality.

 

I would love it if Bond 25's villain was neither Blofeld nor a member of SPECTRE, but rather a "one-off" villain. As part of his mission, Bond needs to interrogate an imprisoned Blofeld, who contains vital information about the film's baddie, as (s)he has been a competitor of SPECTRE for quite some time. Blofeld, who would obviously like to see his competitor out of business, would therefore be MI6's biggest lead and source of information on this villain. This would only give Blofeld two or three scenes (maybe slightly more than White's appearances in QoS), but they would certainly be memorable, as Bond's arch nemesis constantly taunts him ("How's Madeline?") while simultaneously providing Bond the information he requires. Waltz could pull this off brilliantly. 

 

Then have the PTS of Bond 26 be Blofeld sprung from custody, and the final Bond vs. Blofeld showdown would be the rest of Bond 26. 

 

This approach accomplishes two things. First, it gives Blofeld more screentime, particularly with Bond, allowing audiences to really "get a feeling" for Bond's arch nemesis, especially as he was somewhat wasted in SPECTRE. Second, and perhaps more importantly, it avoids the oh-so-predictable option of opening Bond 25 with Blofeld being sprung from MI6 custody. This is a nice way to spice things up and play with audience expectations. As Blofeld is now captured, there is certainly room to do something interesting before the obvious jail break. Imagine Bond 25 with Blofeld almost like Hannibal Lecter in Silence of the Lambs. 

 

Bravo   This is something I would be very keen on seeing. It would bring some continuity to the franchise (which in my opinion EON has always struggled with), give some more screentime to Waltz - allowing him to develop ESB and really make him menacing, and finally we can avoid the easy script writing of breaking ESB lose at the start of Bond 25. 

 

Let's hope EON go for a more thought-out story for Bond 25, and perhaps even Bond 26 rather than going for the easy option and rushing in. 

 

 

Glad you like my idea.

 

I think EON have lately taken the "easy option" and rushed things. Take SPECTRE for instance. Immediately after acquiring the rights to Blofeld and his nefarious organization, EON went all-out, having Bond infiltrate a SPECTRE meeting, meet and capture his arch-nemesis, and destroy said nemesis's Moroccan crater base. All in one film. And to top it all off, EON decided to essentially retcon the previous three films, trying to convince audiences that it was SPECTRE all along, when in fact that was clearly not their intentions when each of those films was made. 

 

Contrast this with the 60s. We are first introduced to SPECTRE in Dr. No, albeit just through a specific operative's Jamaican operation. Then, in FRWL, we are introduced to key players of said organization, including it's nameless and faceless leader, and their base of operations (SPECTRE Island). Then take a break for a film. Then in Thunderball, we are privy to a meeting of the all the SPECTRE higher-ups, as they execute an over-the-top blackmail plot, easily the most ambitious the organization has done so far. And just like FRWL, Thunderball once again features a faceless and nameless leader. Yet Bond has not been privy to any of these meetings, unaware of the big baddie. Finally, in You Only Live Twice, in an even more ambitious plot of stealing US and Russian space rockets, Bond is introduced to the man behind everything, as we the audience hear his name and see his face for the first time, all taking place within the first real (and arguably the most visually stunning) villain's lair of the entire series. It felt like a real pay-off.

 

Arguably the only thread left dangling was the dropped plot point of SPECTRE Island from FRWL, but everything we got more than made up for it. 

 

I had really hoped that if SPECTRE were to return in the new rebooted continuity, that EON would once again take their time in slowly revealing the layers of the organization, but alas, they chose instead to show all their cards in SPECTRE. A real wasted opportunity, in my opinion. It is beyond obvious that EON do not plan more than one film ahead. 

 

If my idea of an imprisoned Blofeld in Bond 25 were to be implemented, it would be the first time in recent years that EON has actually shown some foresight and planning. I'm really hoping. 

 

 

Well of course the producers could argue that SPECTRE was indeed slowly revealed across 4 Daniel Craig Bond movies.

 

-

[Surrie]

 

 

 

If Waltz is willing to sign on for two more, then my dream scenario could become a reality.

 

I would love it if Bond 25's villain was neither Blofeld nor a member of SPECTRE, but rather a "one-off" villain. As part of his mission, Bond needs to interrogate an imprisoned Blofeld, who contains vital information about the film's baddie, as (s)he has been a competitor of SPECTRE for quite some time. Blofeld, who would obviously like to see his competitor out of business, would therefore be MI6's biggest lead and source of information on this villain. This would only give Blofeld two or three scenes (maybe slightly more than White's appearances in QoS), but they would certainly be memorable, as Bond's arch nemesis constantly taunts him ("How's Madeline?") while simultaneously providing Bond the information he requires. Waltz could pull this off brilliantly. 

 

Then have the PTS of Bond 26 be Blofeld sprung from custody, and the final Bond vs. Blofeld showdown would be the rest of Bond 26. 

 

This approach accomplishes two things. First, it gives Blofeld more screentime, particularly with Bond, allowing audiences to really "get a feeling" for Bond's arch nemesis, especially as he was somewhat wasted in SPECTRE. Second, and perhaps more importantly, it avoids the oh-so-predictable option of opening Bond 25 with Blofeld being sprung from MI6 custody. This is a nice way to spice things up and play with audience expectations. As Blofeld is now captured, there is certainly room to do something interesting before the obvious jail break. Imagine Bond 25 with Blofeld almost like Hannibal Lecter in Silence of the Lambs. 

 

Bravo   This is something I would be very keen on seeing. It would bring some continuity to the franchise (which in my opinion EON has always struggled with), give some more screentime to Waltz - allowing him to develop ESB and really make him menacing, and finally we can avoid the easy script writing of breaking ESB lose at the start of Bond 25. 

 

Let's hope EON go for a more thought-out story for Bond 25, and perhaps even Bond 26 rather than going for the easy option and rushing in. 

 

 

Glad you like my idea.

 

I think EON have lately taken the "easy option" and rushed things. Take SPECTRE for instance. Immediately after acquiring the rights to Blofeld and his nefarious organization, EON went all-out, having Bond infiltrate a SPECTRE meeting, meet and capture his arch-nemesis, and destroy said nemesis's Moroccan crater base. All in one film. And to top it all off, EON decided to essentially retcon the previous three films, trying to convince audiences that it was SPECTRE all along, when in fact that was clearly not their intentions when each of those films was made. 

 

Contrast this with the 60s. We are first introduced to SPECTRE in Dr. No, albeit just through a specific operative's Jamaican operation. Then, in FRWL, we are introduced to key players of said organization, including it's nameless and faceless leader, and their base of operations (SPECTRE Island). Then take a break for a film. Then in Thunderball, we are privy to a meeting of the all the SPECTRE higher-ups, as they execute an over-the-top blackmail plot, easily the most ambitious the organization has done so far. And just like FRWL, Thunderball once again features a faceless and nameless leader. Yet Bond has not been privy to any of these meetings, unaware of the big baddie. Finally, in You Only Live Twice, in an even more ambitious plot of stealing US and Russian space rockets, Bond is introduced to the man behind everything, as we the audience hear his name and see his face for the first time, all taking place within the first real (and arguably the most visually stunning) villain's lair of the entire series. It felt like a real pay-off.

 

Arguably the only thread left dangling was the dropped plot point of SPECTRE Island from FRWL, but everything we got more than made up for it. 

 

I had really hoped that if SPECTRE were to return in the new rebooted continuity, that EON would once again take their time in slowly revealing the layers of the organization, but alas, they chose instead to show all their cards in SPECTRE. A real wasted opportunity, in my opinion. It is beyond obvious that EON do not plan more than one film ahead. 

 

If my idea of an imprisoned Blofeld in Bond 25 were to be implemented, it would be the first time in recent years that EON has actually shown some foresight and planning. I'm really hoping. 

 

 

Well of course the producers could argue that SPECTRE was indeed slowly revealed across 4 Daniel Craig Bond movies.

 

-

 

 

Very loosely argue - it's a stretch let's be honest!

[Orion]

 

 

 

 

If Waltz is willing to sign on for two more, then my dream scenario could become a reality.

 

I would love it if Bond 25's villain was neither Blofeld nor a member of SPECTRE, but rather a "one-off" villain. As part of his mission, Bond needs to interrogate an imprisoned Blofeld, who contains vital information about the film's baddie, as (s)he has been a competitor of SPECTRE for quite some time. Blofeld, who would obviously like to see his competitor out of business, would therefore be MI6's biggest lead and source of information on this villain. This would only give Blofeld two or three scenes (maybe slightly more than White's appearances in QoS), but they would certainly be memorable, as Bond's arch nemesis constantly taunts him ("How's Madeline?") while simultaneously providing Bond the information he requires. Waltz could pull this off brilliantly. 

 

Then have the PTS of Bond 26 be Blofeld sprung from custody, and the final Bond vs. Blofeld showdown would be the rest of Bond 26. 

 

This approach accomplishes two things. First, it gives Blofeld more screentime, particularly with Bond, allowing audiences to really "get a feeling" for Bond's arch nemesis, especially as he was somewhat wasted in SPECTRE. Second, and perhaps more importantly, it avoids the oh-so-predictable option of opening Bond 25 with Blofeld being sprung from MI6 custody. This is a nice way to spice things up and play with audience expectations. As Blofeld is now captured, there is certainly room to do something interesting before the obvious jail break. Imagine Bond 25 with Blofeld almost like Hannibal Lecter in Silence of the Lambs. 

 

Bravo   This is something I would be very keen on seeing. It would bring some continuity to the franchise (which in my opinion EON has always struggled with), give some more screentime to Waltz - allowing him to develop ESB and really make him menacing, and finally we can avoid the easy script writing of breaking ESB lose at the start of Bond 25. 

 

Let's hope EON go for a more thought-out story for Bond 25, and perhaps even Bond 26 rather than going for the easy option and rushing in. 

 

 

Glad you like my idea.

 

I think EON have lately taken the "easy option" and rushed things. Take SPECTRE for instance. Immediately after acquiring the rights to Blofeld and his nefarious organization, EON went all-out, having Bond infiltrate a SPECTRE meeting, meet and capture his arch-nemesis, and destroy said nemesis's Moroccan crater base. All in one film. And to top it all off, EON decided to essentially retcon the previous three films, trying to convince audiences that it was SPECTRE all along, when in fact that was clearly not their intentions when each of those films was made. 

 

Contrast this with the 60s. We are first introduced to SPECTRE in Dr. No, albeit just through a specific operative's Jamaican operation. Then, in FRWL, we are introduced to key players of said organization, including it's nameless and faceless leader, and their base of operations (SPECTRE Island). Then take a break for a film. Then in Thunderball, we are privy to a meeting of the all the SPECTRE higher-ups, as they execute an over-the-top blackmail plot, easily the most ambitious the organization has done so far. And just like FRWL, Thunderball once again features a faceless and nameless leader. Yet Bond has not been privy to any of these meetings, unaware of the big baddie. Finally, in You Only Live Twice, in an even more ambitious plot of stealing US and Russian space rockets, Bond is introduced to the man behind everything, as we the audience hear his name and see his face for the first time, all taking place within the first real (and arguably the most visually stunning) villain's lair of the entire series. It felt like a real pay-off.

 

Arguably the only thread left dangling was the dropped plot point of SPECTRE Island from FRWL, but everything we got more than made up for it. 

 

I had really hoped that if SPECTRE were to return in the new rebooted continuity, that EON would once again take their time in slowly revealing the layers of the organization, but alas, they chose instead to show all their cards in SPECTRE. A real wasted opportunity, in my opinion. It is beyond obvious that EON do not plan more than one film ahead. 

 

If my idea of an imprisoned Blofeld in Bond 25 were to be implemented, it would be the first time in recent years that EON has actually shown some foresight and planning. I'm really hoping. 

 

 

Well of course the producers could argue that SPECTRE was indeed slowly revealed across 4 Daniel Craig Bond movies.

 

-

 

 

Very loosely argue - it's a stretch let's be honest!

 

saying Skyfall was always part of it would certainly be a stretch (read: blatant lie), but Quantum (or "our organisation" as it was in CR) was always quite blatantly EON wanting to use SPECTRE but without being sued.

[Surrie]

 

 

 

 

 

If Waltz is willing to sign on for two more, then my dream scenario could become a reality.

 

I would love it if Bond 25's villain was neither Blofeld nor a member of SPECTRE, but rather a "one-off" villain. As part of his mission, Bond needs to interrogate an imprisoned Blofeld, who contains vital information about the film's baddie, as (s)he has been a competitor of SPECTRE for quite some time. Blofeld, who would obviously like to see his competitor out of business, would therefore be MI6's biggest lead and source of information on this villain. This would only give Blofeld two or three scenes (maybe slightly more than White's appearances in QoS), but they would certainly be memorable, as Bond's arch nemesis constantly taunts him ("How's Madeline?") while simultaneously providing Bond the information he requires. Waltz could pull this off brilliantly. 

 

Then have the PTS of Bond 26 be Blofeld sprung from custody, and the final Bond vs. Blofeld showdown would be the rest of Bond 26. 

 

This approach accomplishes two things. First, it gives Blofeld more screentime, particularly with Bond, allowing audiences to really "get a feeling" for Bond's arch nemesis, especially as he was somewhat wasted in SPECTRE. Second, and perhaps more importantly, it avoids the oh-so-predictable option of opening Bond 25 with Blofeld being sprung from MI6 custody. This is a nice way to spice things up and play with audience expectations. As Blofeld is now captured, there is certainly room to do something interesting before the obvious jail break. Imagine Bond 25 with Blofeld almost like Hannibal Lecter in Silence of the Lambs. 

 

Bravo   This is something I would be very keen on seeing. It would bring some continuity to the franchise (which in my opinion EON has always struggled with), give some more screentime to Waltz - allowing him to develop ESB and really make him menacing, and finally we can avoid the easy script writing of breaking ESB lose at the start of Bond 25. 

 

Let's hope EON go for a more thought-out story for Bond 25, and perhaps even Bond 26 rather than going for the easy option and rushing in. 

 

 

Glad you like my idea.

 

I think EON have lately taken the "easy option" and rushed things. Take SPECTRE for instance. Immediately after acquiring the rights to Blofeld and his nefarious organization, EON went all-out, having Bond infiltrate a SPECTRE meeting, meet and capture his arch-nemesis, and destroy said nemesis's Moroccan crater base. All in one film. And to top it all off, EON decided to essentially retcon the previous three films, trying to convince audiences that it was SPECTRE all along, when in fact that was clearly not their intentions when each of those films was made. 

 

Contrast this with the 60s. We are first introduced to SPECTRE in Dr. No, albeit just through a specific operative's Jamaican operation. Then, in FRWL, we are introduced to key players of said organization, including it's nameless and faceless leader, and their base of operations (SPECTRE Island). Then take a break for a film. Then in Thunderball, we are privy to a meeting of the all the SPECTRE higher-ups, as they execute an over-the-top blackmail plot, easily the most ambitious the organization has done so far. And just like FRWL, Thunderball once again features a faceless and nameless leader. Yet Bond has not been privy to any of these meetings, unaware of the big baddie. Finally, in You Only Live Twice, in an even more ambitious plot of stealing US and Russian space rockets, Bond is introduced to the man behind everything, as we the audience hear his name and see his face for the first time, all taking place within the first real (and arguably the most visually stunning) villain's lair of the entire series. It felt like a real pay-off.

 

Arguably the only thread left dangling was the dropped plot point of SPECTRE Island from FRWL, but everything we got more than made up for it. 

 

I had really hoped that if SPECTRE were to return in the new rebooted continuity, that EON would once again take their time in slowly revealing the layers of the organization, but alas, they chose instead to show all their cards in SPECTRE. A real wasted opportunity, in my opinion. It is beyond obvious that EON do not plan more than one film ahead. 

 

If my idea of an imprisoned Blofeld in Bond 25 were to be implemented, it would be the first time in recent years that EON has actually shown some foresight and planning. I'm really hoping. 

 

 

Well of course the producers could argue that SPECTRE was indeed slowly revealed across 4 Daniel Craig Bond movies.

 

-

 

 

Very loosely argue - it's a stretch let's be honest!

 

saying Skyfall was always part of it would certainly be a stretch (read: blatant lie), but Quantum (or "our organisation" as it was in CR) was always quite blatantly EON wanting to use SPECTRE but without being sued.

 

 

I agree that is what Quantum's purpose was, but to say they had SPECTRE (the movie plot) in mind when they wrote and filmed QoS is stretching it very far!

[Orion]

 

 

 

 

 

 

If Waltz is willing to sign on for two more, then my dream scenario could become a reality.

 

I would love it if Bond 25's villain was neither Blofeld nor a member of SPECTRE, but rather a "one-off" villain. As part of his mission, Bond needs to interrogate an imprisoned Blofeld, who contains vital information about the film's baddie, as (s)he has been a competitor of SPECTRE for quite some time. Blofeld, who would obviously like to see his competitor out of business, would therefore be MI6's biggest lead and source of information on this villain. This would only give Blofeld two or three scenes (maybe slightly more than White's appearances in QoS), but they would certainly be memorable, as Bond's arch nemesis constantly taunts him ("How's Madeline?") while simultaneously providing Bond the information he requires. Waltz could pull this off brilliantly. 

 

Then have the PTS of Bond 26 be Blofeld sprung from custody, and the final Bond vs. Blofeld showdown would be the rest of Bond 26. 

 

This approach accomplishes two things. First, it gives Blofeld more screentime, particularly with Bond, allowing audiences to really "get a feeling" for Bond's arch nemesis, especially as he was somewhat wasted in SPECTRE. Second, and perhaps more importantly, it avoids the oh-so-predictable option of opening Bond 25 with Blofeld being sprung from MI6 custody. This is a nice way to spice things up and play with audience expectations. As Blofeld is now captured, there is certainly room to do something interesting before the obvious jail break. Imagine Bond 25 with Blofeld almost like Hannibal Lecter in Silence of the Lambs. 

 

Bravo   This is something I would be very keen on seeing. It would bring some continuity to the franchise (which in my opinion EON has always struggled with), give some more screentime to Waltz - allowing him to develop ESB and really make him menacing, and finally we can avoid the easy script writing of breaking ESB lose at the start of Bond 25. 

 

Let's hope EON go for a more thought-out story for Bond 25, and perhaps even Bond 26 rather than going for the easy option and rushing in. 

 

 

Glad you like my idea.

 

I think EON have lately taken the "easy option" and rushed things. Take SPECTRE for instance. Immediately after acquiring the rights to Blofeld and his nefarious organization, EON went all-out, having Bond infiltrate a SPECTRE meeting, meet and capture his arch-nemesis, and destroy said nemesis's Moroccan crater base. All in one film. And to top it all off, EON decided to essentially retcon the previous three films, trying to convince audiences that it was SPECTRE all along, when in fact that was clearly not their intentions when each of those films was made. 

 

Contrast this with the 60s. We are first introduced to SPECTRE in Dr. No, albeit just through a specific operative's Jamaican operation. Then, in FRWL, we are introduced to key players of said organization, including it's nameless and faceless leader, and their base of operations (SPECTRE Island). Then take a break for a film. Then in Thunderball, we are privy to a meeting of the all the SPECTRE higher-ups, as they execute an over-the-top blackmail plot, easily the most ambitious the organization has done so far. And just like FRWL, Thunderball once again features a faceless and nameless leader. Yet Bond has not been privy to any of these meetings, unaware of the big baddie. Finally, in You Only Live Twice, in an even more ambitious plot of stealing US and Russian space rockets, Bond is introduced to the man behind everything, as we the audience hear his name and see his face for the first time, all taking place within the first real (and arguably the most visually stunning) villain's lair of the entire series. It felt like a real pay-off.

 

Arguably the only thread left dangling was the dropped plot point of SPECTRE Island from FRWL, but everything we got more than made up for it. 

 

I had really hoped that if SPECTRE were to return in the new rebooted continuity, that EON would once again take their time in slowly revealing the layers of the organization, but alas, they chose instead to show all their cards in SPECTRE. A real wasted opportunity, in my opinion. It is beyond obvious that EON do not plan more than one film ahead. 

 

If my idea of an imprisoned Blofeld in Bond 25 were to be implemented, it would be the first time in recent years that EON has actually shown some foresight and planning. I'm really hoping. 

 

 

Well of course the producers could argue that SPECTRE was indeed slowly revealed across 4 Daniel Craig Bond movies.

 

-

 

 

Very loosely argue - it's a stretch let's be honest!

 

saying Skyfall was always part of it would certainly be a stretch (read: blatant lie), but Quantum (or "our organisation" as it was in CR) was always quite blatantly EON wanting to use SPECTRE but without being sued.

 

 

I agree that is what Quantum's purpose was, but to say they had SPECTRE (the movie plot) in mind when they wrote and filmed QoS is stretching it very far!

 

Oh definitely, EON have always been like that though, they only deal with one film at a time, adding and dropping continuity depending on the needs of the film they where working on at that moment, spectre was only used in the early sixties films because they wanted to stay as apolitical as possible so always replaced anything resembling reality with spectre. We got serious additions to continuity in Spectre to have the plot match the films thematic idea of embracing your past so as to move forward, which is a nice enough idea, and for the most part was done well, save for the idea that Silva was spectre and that Blofeld is the son of Oberhauser as I found both pushed the suspension of disbelief too far, though not enough to spoil my enjoyment. Fleming's books are filled with those sort of "well isn't that a convenient coincidence...moving on" plot points, such as the openings of both Goldfinger and Thunderball, The films wrote out Goldfingers, didn't bother with Thunderball and then Octopussy, Goldeneye and many other Bond films hinge on such convenient coincidences.

[DaveBond21]

 

 

 

 

 

 

If Waltz is willing to sign on for two more, then my dream scenario could become a reality.

 

I would love it if Bond 25's villain was neither Blofeld nor a member of SPECTRE, but rather a "one-off" villain. As part of his mission, Bond needs to interrogate an imprisoned Blofeld, who contains vital information about the film's baddie, as (s)he has been a competitor of SPECTRE for quite some time. Blofeld, who would obviously like to see his competitor out of business, would therefore be MI6's biggest lead and source of information on this villain. This would only give Blofeld two or three scenes (maybe slightly more than White's appearances in QoS), but they would certainly be memorable, as Bond's arch nemesis constantly taunts him ("How's Madeline?") while simultaneously providing Bond the information he requires. Waltz could pull this off brilliantly. 

 

Then have the PTS of Bond 26 be Blofeld sprung from custody, and the final Bond vs. Blofeld showdown would be the rest of Bond 26. 

 

This approach accomplishes two things. First, it gives Blofeld more screentime, particularly with Bond, allowing audiences to really "get a feeling" for Bond's arch nemesis, especially as he was somewhat wasted in SPECTRE. Second, and perhaps more importantly, it avoids the oh-so-predictable option of opening Bond 25 with Blofeld being sprung from MI6 custody. This is a nice way to spice things up and play with audience expectations. As Blofeld is now captured, there is certainly room to do something interesting before the obvious jail break. Imagine Bond 25 with Blofeld almost like Hannibal Lecter in Silence of the Lambs. 

 

Bravo   This is something I would be very keen on seeing. It would bring some continuity to the franchise (which in my opinion EON has always struggled with), give some more screentime to Waltz - allowing him to develop ESB and really make him menacing, and finally we can avoid the easy script writing of breaking ESB lose at the start of Bond 25. 

 

Let's hope EON go for a more thought-out story for Bond 25, and perhaps even Bond 26 rather than going for the easy option and rushing in. 

 

 

Glad you like my idea.

 

I think EON have lately taken the "easy option" and rushed things. Take SPECTRE for instance. Immediately after acquiring the rights to Blofeld and his nefarious organization, EON went all-out, having Bond infiltrate a SPECTRE meeting, meet and capture his arch-nemesis, and destroy said nemesis's Moroccan crater base. All in one film. And to top it all off, EON decided to essentially retcon the previous three films, trying to convince audiences that it was SPECTRE all along, when in fact that was clearly not their intentions when each of those films was made. 

 

Contrast this with the 60s. We are first introduced to SPECTRE in Dr. No, albeit just through a specific operative's Jamaican operation. Then, in FRWL, we are introduced to key players of said organization, including it's nameless and faceless leader, and their base of operations (SPECTRE Island). Then take a break for a film. Then in Thunderball, we are privy to a meeting of the all the SPECTRE higher-ups, as they execute an over-the-top blackmail plot, easily the most ambitious the organization has done so far. And just like FRWL, Thunderball once again features a faceless and nameless leader. Yet Bond has not been privy to any of these meetings, unaware of the big baddie. Finally, in You Only Live Twice, in an even more ambitious plot of stealing US and Russian space rockets, Bond is introduced to the man behind everything, as we the audience hear his name and see his face for the first time, all taking place within the first real (and arguably the most visually stunning) villain's lair of the entire series. It felt like a real pay-off.

 

Arguably the only thread left dangling was the dropped plot point of SPECTRE Island from FRWL, but everything we got more than made up for it. 

 

I had really hoped that if SPECTRE were to return in the new rebooted continuity, that EON would once again take their time in slowly revealing the layers of the organization, but alas, they chose instead to show all their cards in SPECTRE. A real wasted opportunity, in my opinion. It is beyond obvious that EON do not plan more than one film ahead. 

 

If my idea of an imprisoned Blofeld in Bond 25 were to be implemented, it would be the first time in recent years that EON has actually shown some foresight and planning. I'm really hoping. 

 

 

Well of course the producers could argue that SPECTRE was indeed slowly revealed across 4 Daniel Craig Bond movies.

 

-

 

 

Very loosely argue - it's a stretch let's be honest!

 

saying Skyfall was always part of it would certainly be a stretch (read: blatant lie), but Quantum (or "our organisation" as it was in CR) was always quite blatantly EON wanting to use SPECTRE but without being sued.

 

 

I agree that is what Quantum's purpose was, but to say they had SPECTRE (the movie plot) in mind when they wrote and filmed QoS is stretching it very far!

 

 

I didn't say they would try to claim that they always had SPECTRE in mind; I said they could argue that the organisation was indeed slowly revealed in the previous 3 movies - we saw the main people revealed - Le Chiffre, White, Greene and Silva. Even though the producers and the audience didnt know it at the time - it was the case - they were all working for SPECTRE and reporting to Blofeld.

 

---

[AMC Hornet]

 

Even though the producers and the audience didnt know it at the time - it was the case - they were all working for SPECTRE and reporting to Blofeld.

Perhaps even the characters didn't all know...

[DaveBond21]

 

 

Even though the producers and the audience didnt know it at the time - it was the case - they were all working for SPECTRE and reporting to Blofeld.

Perhaps even the characters didn't all know...

 

 

Good point. Although Mr White did at some point.

 

___________________________________________________________________________________________________

[Surrie]

 

 

 

Even though the producers and the audience didnt know it at the time - it was the case - they were all working for SPECTRE and reporting to Blofeld.

Perhaps even the characters didn't all know...

 

 

Good point. Although Mr White did at some point.

 

___________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

 

Convenient coincidence that unfortunately impacts the credibility of Craig's previous movies.

[Guy Haines]

I think a simple explanation of "whatever happened to Quantum?" would have helped in the movie. I would have included it in the confrontation in the CCTV room between Bond and Blofeld something like; Blofeld "Remember Tosca at the opera house? You made quite an entrance. You brought the house down, James - and Quantum with it! A project of my genius. You interefered in my world..... so I destroyed yours!"

[Surrie]

I think a simple explanation of "whatever happened to Quantum?" would have helped in the movie. I would have included it in the confrontation in the CCTV room between Bond and Blofeld something like; Blofeld "Remember Tosca at the opera house? You made quite an entrance. You brought the house down, James - and Quantum with it! A project of my genius. You interefered in my world..... so I destroyed yours!"

 

Even that little bit of added dialogue would have vastly improved the credibility of SPECTRE as a movie.  

[tdalton]

 

 

 

 

Even though the producers and the audience didnt know it at the time - it was the case - they were all working for SPECTRE and reporting to Blofeld.

Perhaps even the characters didn't all know...

 

 

Good point. Although Mr White did at some point.

 

___________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

 

Convenient coincidence that unfortunately impacts the credibility of Craig's previous movies.

 

 

I don't think that it impacts the credibility of Craig's first three films, or at least it doesn't for me.  Le Chiffre, Greene, and Silva were not working for SPECTRE as far as I'm concerned.  The only film that makes any claim to that effect is Spectre.  If I'm forced to change my perception of a Craig-era film to fit this new narrative, it's easier to simply ignore Spectre than to infer plot points and information into Casino Royale, Quantum of Solace, and Skyfall that quite simply isn't there.

[Dustin]

Let's be thankful this is not in George Lucas' hands...

[Surrie]

 

 

 

 

 

Even though the producers and the audience didnt know it at the time - it was the case - they were all working for SPECTRE and reporting to Blofeld.

Perhaps even the characters didn't all know...

 

 

Good point. Although Mr White did at some point.

 

___________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

 

Convenient coincidence that unfortunately impacts the credibility of Craig's previous movies.

 

 

I don't think that it impacts the credibility of Craig's first three films, or at least it doesn't for me.  Le Chiffre, Greene, and Silva were not working for SPECTRE as far as I'm concerned.  The only film that makes any claim to that effect is Spectre.  If I'm forced to change my perception of a Craig-era film to fit this new narrative, it's easier to simply ignore Spectre than to infer plot points and information into Casino Royale, Quantum of Solace, and Skyfall that quite simply isn't there.

 

 

EON and the writers needed to think this through more before filming. For me, I can't ignore SPECTRE and it does damage the credibility of Craig's previous outings. It's sloppy and lazy for them to just explain away the previous villains and Quantum as part of Spectre. That is what I think is damaging.