If they really go down that route and end Craig´s tenure with a film that uses lots of YOLT-material, with Blofeld going off the grid as Shatterhand, with CraigBond ending without memory, then - yes - I would welcome Waltz back, just for continuity´s sake, and maybe he would be much better as Blofeld now, with more interesting material to play.
And it would make sense to close out Craig´s arc with another connected story, instead of completely abandoning the stories of the previous four movies.
Despite my wish for a simple mission I do see the possibilities of a true YOLT-adaptation for Craig.
It’s screen rant. They make their entire living on coming up with click bait. To say Burning everything to the ground because a film isn’t THE BEST FUCKNG MOVIE EVER MADE!!!
Part of me would want to see a new actor step into the role of Blofeld, but I must say the other part of me respects Christoph Waltz’s honesty surrounding his interpretation of the part and his seeming desire to have wanted it to be better, therefore on some level I would want to see him take another stab at it, albeit with a director who would give him the guidance that he said he was looking for from Mendes.
The part I found interesting was to just keep it simple and make the best Bond film you can with the resources already in place, versus going back to square one and trying for another SF. Not sure I agree with that approach, but I found it interesting. And yes, Screen Rant is click bait, I’m well aware.
If they really toyed with Waltz coming back it should have left some traces on the casting Richter scale - but they probably didn’t pursue that. Waltz has been vocal about wanting to improve on his Blofeld - he‘d need a lot more and better material to do so. So he‘d likely only agree if he liked the script.
And then, if Waltz came back it would make BOND 25 more or less SPECTRE II. Is that what Eon, what Universal, what fans would want?
But didn’t Waltz point out (when put on the spot about returning) that many different actors have portrayed Blofeld over the decades, with not one repeating? So a precedence has been set.
For me, this is an important point. As the culture became ever more (hyper)individualistic, Bond, though a little late to the party to start with, reflected the increasing importance laid on personal choice and fulfillment. This began with Dalton-Bond and carried through in fits and starts through Brosnan-Bond and into Craig-Bond. SKYFALL was its logical conclusion as the rogue was re-assimilated into the workings/desires of Empire. SPECTRE then took this idea a step further (instead of just re-roguing Bond) and posited that this seeming act of volition was actually nothing more than the the final act of an absorption scenario which had been going on for years. In SPECTRE we have the automaton assassin–killing for Queen and country–wind him up and he just keeps going (hence the absurdity of the plane sequence where he seems to be both trying to save Dr. Swann and kill her.).
I will disagree that I do not think that question of Bond’s relevancy is forced–I think the best Bond films engaged in a dialogue with their times and is one element that has helped the franchise persevere, In an era when government is looked on with such suspicion, how does Bond-as-protagonist relate to government and keep an audience’s interest (outside of that audience which is interested in Bond for his/the series own sake).
It would be very strange to see a CraigBond-film without Waltz as Blofeld. Especially after all the pains they went to in order to construct continuity.
Maybe they would try to use elements of YOLT and even a villain named Shatterhand - but not giving that to Blofeld but some new villain?
Nah, bad idea, too. I guess the whole “Shatterhand”-title is just a rumor or a strategically placed fake title. Like “Blue Harvest” for “Return of the Jedi”.
But does the mass audience really question Bond´s relevance? I would say: no. They just go to see a fun spectacle. Audiences don’t go to see the Marvel films because they contemplate the need for super heroes in a society fraught with fear and divisiveness either.
Also, IMO, the whole questioning of Bond´s relevancy actually only opens up that can of worms. Of course, the idea of a secret agent saving the world today is ludicrous, much more so than in the 60´s. Especially now with an agent from Great Britain. One might rather ask: should Bond look for another country to be hired, instead of his increasingly irrelevant home.
But, again, I don’t want to ask myself a question a film answers eventually with a resounding “of course!” - just like all the CraigBond films did and had to do.
Instead, I just suspend my disbelief and indulge in the fantasy world in which Bond can still make a difference and stop the villain from spreading evil.
But even the books addressed Blofeld’s appearance change in YOLT. He was much different than he appeared to Bond in OHMSS. Why would an actor change, say to Mark Strong as an example, not fit that bill?
I’m with most on these boards that the “Bond goes rogue” thing has been done to death, working best in LTK and QoS where it is a logical extension of the plot.
But to be fair on the filmmakers…the cinematic Bond was created in such a way that his appeal was in his “independence” - that he wasn’t the typical company man (especially as a reflection of 60s Britain). For example, in DN, the chap who comes to the casino is clearly a by-the-numbers-civil-service type; whereas SC is immediately presented as “not like all the rest.”
So it can be a juggling act to completely dump the notion of going rogue, from a character whose appeal is in his “outsider status.” I know some people have accused TWINE and DAD of falling back on it as a plot point; instead I see the clash of Bond not falling his boss’ instructions as just a reflection of film-Bond was shaped to appeal to the audience.
Plastic surgery might change looks up to a degree - but would I really believe Waltz now looks like someone else (i.e. Mark Strong) AND more importantly has a different voice now, too?
Well, suspension of disbelief again…
I´d rather have them employ Waltz and change his appearance with makeup and hair.
Indeed it would. These are different times with far more technology and storytelling employed to suspend disbelief. Today’s audience lacks the experience of having to employ the imagination to overcome such shortcomings in what they watch. Before the film, or the performances were spoken of there’d be the endless hubbub chatter of “But it’s not Waltz and it confused me!”.
If not trying to slightly remodel Waltz’s face after plastic surgery, then this is the next route to consider and perhaps the easiest to sell to nervous shareholders.
You mean how they got Donald Pleasence to change his appearance to look like Charles Gray in DAF? Sorry, just still struggling with you can’t replace for continuity. I’d like to see Waltz again but he’s on record as saying he won’t return.
I think it was how everything was written, and him having to lie about everything that he did. He probably doesn’t want to look like a hypocrite. He still deserves a second chance, with better material.
