It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
The Soviet Union maybe was never the main villain in a Bond film, but they certainly were depicted as antagonists several times. Namely FRWL. Spectre is the main enemy, but Bond raids the Soviet embassy and steals a decoder device from them with the intent of bringing it back to Britain. His main obstacle after that is Spectre trying to steal it, but that doesn't mean that the Russian soldiers in the embassy weren't a hurdle for him to get over before that.
There's a similar situation in TLD, although less overt. The main Russian villain is a rogue, but Bond kills plenty of Russian soldiers in Afghanistan, aids the Afghan resistance, and the Russian soldiers there generally come off like stormtroopers on Tatooine. He also kills loyal Russian soldiers in OP, but that can be chalked up to a misunderstanding since they didn't know why he was there, so that one doesn't count. Orlov was 100% rogue. Then there's YOLT where an unamed Asian country that everyone knows is China is a secondary villain behind Spectre in a similar fashion to the Soviets in FRWL.
As for the actual topic, the way to get topical is to have a Trump/Farage style demagogue be secretly in bed with Spectre and have to be exposed by Bond. That would especially play into all the "Manchurian Candidate" anxieties surrounding Trump's Russia ties. You'd obviously leave the politician's specific politics out of it to keep the film nominally apolitical and not alienate a big chunk of the audience, but you could just model the villain on that kind of guy.
There was a bit more to the story than that. It was hinted that Quantum had members who were quite well connected to legitimate businesses and even governments...my memory is that an advisor to a well placed British politician is among the folks attending the Tosca meeting (but it's been awhile since I've watched QoS so my memory could be faulty.)
Please understand that I'm not suggesting that the script of Bond 24 SHOULD reflect current political situations, just that if those situations leave P&W at a loss for ideas as to how to proceed then the semi-legitimate face indicated for Quantum (although not specifically followed up in Spectre) MIGHT give Eon a hint as to one direction they could go. Personally, I'd be perfectly happy to have B24 be entirely apolitical as well as entirely Spectreless. Or at least Oberhauserless. I don't expect that last point, but I would appreciate it...
That's a question only you can answer.
I'd just like to be clear: I don't WANT our protagonist to have to be proving himself over & over again. I don't recommend that the storylines for the Bond series go into any repetitious direction at all, whether that's a "west is bad" direction or a "billionaires are all power-hungry lunatics" direction (certainly a plot element that the Bond series seemed content to repeat over & over again at one point in the Moore era.) My comment was based entirely on the report (linked to above) that P&W are feeling a lack of inspiration in the aftermath of a Trump presidency. I do make the assumption that THEY want to follow in the path that the past few movies have already set out (they've been pretty darned successful financially so it seems only natural that Eon would like to see that pattern continue)...and I'm only saying that it should be simple enough for them to continue moving in that direction if that's what they (and Eon Productions) want to do.
I agree. The older films showed the issues that existed without trying to be over-preachy.
To be very honest, now world leaders become less ethical and much less examples of good morale, I think it's only logical that movies take over that role a bit. You can call it "preachy", but I think it's a welcome development. What's actually wrong with movies that have deeper messages of morale, ethics and humane long-term visions?
I mean, everyone knows my worries about many of today's world leaders. Erdogan, Duterte, Jacob Zuma, Assad, Xi Jinping, Putin and especially Maduro. But also Donald Trump needs to be mentioned. If this orange-haired billionaire would have grown up in Turkey or Russia, then I wouldn't be surprised if he turned out to be a full-blown dictator. These men, to me, are the worst examples of world leaders. These men lack profoound global ethics, lack a certain humane morale and instead are much more narcissist and nationalist.
So I welcome a bit of "preaching", as long as it stays as visible as we saw in "Skyfall", Quantum Of Solace" and "SPECTRE". It certainly adds a bit more intelligence to the genre. Especially after watching that dreadful "Fast And Furious 8".
http://www.activistpost.com/2017/05/syrias-assad-just-explained-how-america-really-works.html
I prefer to read traditional newspapers, instead of all that alt-right, fake-news, alt-news blogs like Breitbart, InfoWars and, indeed, ActivistPost. I think they are poisonous to good journalism.
People think Dwight Eisenhower was talking about the military. He was referring to the entire defense industry, including the intelligence services. Those same intelligence services that falsified information to mislead Colin Powell and take America into the disastrous Iraq War. Remember who was instrumental in providing those false documents. Yes indeed. British Intelligence.
The past few weeks I have been reading a lot about North-Korea, and frankly, it frightens my what this sick, extremist nation is capable of. It seems that the cheesiest of Bond films arereally becoming reality. Ian Fleming would be baffled if he was still alive....
Personally what we're going through now seems more like the opening scenes of Threads.
And if you haven't seen it ***minor spoiler alert*** someone dies.
Great film. Horrifically bleak.
Nobody likes the NK regime, but this hoopla is still hipocricy on the highest level.
Ooowh? Explain please @Goldball....ehh....@Thunderfinger (still love your nickname ;-) )
Well, I do think that is an understated remark...to say the least. I don't consider this 'the usual stuff'.
North Korea would cease to exist within a few hours if it did anything out of line intentionally. They know that.
Ultimately these tensions allow for more weapons sales into Asia and for an increased US presence there. The Asian 'pivot' is in full effect.
The real risk here is with something unintended happening. If one of these tests results in a rogue missile hitting land, then there will be serious consequences. So the brinkmanship must be dialed back on both sides. Escalation is a mistake.
The sequence directly involves a terrorist attack at an American airport only 5 years after 9/11.
I've been thinking about this sequence mainly after watching the film United 93 for the first time. That's a very harrowing film that clearly makes a point in directly addressing the atrocity and pointing a clear finger at the culprits.
CR is further complicated by the fact that Claudio Santamaria looks similar to the lead terrorist in United 93. I've looked at his IMDB and Santamaria doesn't seem to have any Middle Eastern blood. He's only ever been primarily cast as Italian characters. So this is probably just my ignorance speaking. Though the notion of Bond chasing Arab terrorists at airports is a rather political issue. I don't think people discuss it enough.
I understand the intent of the scene is to give the film some 'real world' context and sharply bring Craig's era into a post-9/11 world. Though is there not something a little tasteless about doing it in such a context?
Not to draw in another film I watched recently into the mix, but I did watch Hunger Games: Mockingjay - Part 1 the other day and that film uses a lot of imagery from Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay, and war-stricken places like Gaza and Syria. The political context of those areas is ignored and the images are merely appropriated.
In contrast, CR is using the airport sequence to present a political reality in the context of the story. It does go someway towards adding texture to the film. Plus, the character is credited as 'Carlos' and played by an Italian actor. We also know Carlos is doing this for the money.
All the intelligence services of the world spy on their neighbors, whether they are friends or not, it is part of the profession, the purpose of these departments. Bond is affiliated with a specific country and is required to spy on its neighbors, unlike, for example, a Nick Fury who belongs to a fictitious organization acting for the United Nations.
Is it still possible to show this character collecting information on countries like Germany or the United States? It is of course not a question of representing these countries as threats but of taking into account the profession of the protagonist. Wouldn't that be in contradiction with the commercial ambition of these films that Ian Fleming did not necessarily have to worry?
If films have never represented countries as enemies so far for Bond (well, except maybe China in YOLT), the Cold War offered a spy ground for the character who could do what his job normally involves, especially in TLD or GE. With the need today to conquer commercial markets and therefore meet the local requirements of the audience, can the movies show a character spying on these populations? These are everyday elements of geopolitics and I think it would be a shame to do without them.
Sure, to some the romanticizing of the spy is politically incorrect in this day and age. But Bond is still a powerful enough stand-alone cinematic brand that pulls in people of all cultures and political persuasions - so long as it's an excellent adventure with memorable characters and action, as well as a healthy dose of exoticism and the "benign bizarre" as some old forum members called it.
While striking the right balance between what can be an unsexy reality and the tropes of Bondian fantasy hasn't always been 100% successful, that's undoubtedly what the producers are always trying to do.
You only note two sides of what is actually a three-sided structure: art, entertainment, AND COMMERCE. While a realistic spy story can hew closest to the "art" side of the pyramid and a fantastic Bondian adventure lists to the "entertainment" side, any film that seeks to prioritize the commercial aspect of the 007 franchise is likely to give a wide berth to storylines that involve a potentially controversial political slant. Thus the film version of From Russia With Love replaces the truly Russian villains of the novel with the non-existent apolitical organization that is Spectre.
During the Cold War, the series was not released in countries that appeared to contradict the interests of the British secret services. From this point of view, it was easier to represent these nations which were naturally the object of espionage operations. If the Bond films avoided making these countries threats, they still represented them as actors in the world of espionage, potential opponents or political antagonists. The end of this bipolarization and the opening of new commercial markets changed the situation.
Although naive or simplified, geopolitics remained a subject discussed and always seemed to me at the heart of the identity of what was the franchise, both literary and cinematographic. In my opinion, this goes beyond a simple question of opposition between a certain realism and a grandiloquence, the two coexisted in the past. Although more representative of certain realities (terrorism, hacking) the Craig era does little to depict geopolitics, unlike what was the case with Connery, Dalton or Brosnan.
Indeed, QoS was sadly out of my mind! This example is all the more relevant since these are the most geopolitical and subtle issues in the series, in my opinion. But beyond this film, the geopolitical framework is largely absent from this era. The countries visited by Bond do not exist so much as nations, with their own intelligence services for example. The exception coming from Quantum of Solace with the role played by the CIA, reflecting an absence of Manichaeism in international relations.
It reminds me of the Bond 17 screenplay, written by William Osborne & William Davies, that was set to involve the infiltration of a Libyan military complex in the pre-title sequence and a direct confrontation between Bond and the Libyan secret services. Thus I was wondering if it could still be possible today to represent such a sequence, directly involving existing countries, without becoming a commercial obstacle.
One of the reasons why I find QOS so compelling. Its plot is as relevant as one can get.
Bond avoided direct conflict in this regard with the exception of a few circumstances. There will always be politicalness in films about government agencies. It is impossible to avoid completely. Early Bond did not need Russia to be THE enemy to be successful. My sole point was that Bond could be successful either way. in the standpoint of quality and entetianment.
Yes - avoiding the commercial fallout of offending nations in an overtly political film IS a legitimate concern for a picture worldwide aims. Could it be done? Maybe. Depends on how it would play out and who the "villain" is.