Reporting For Duty
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Categories
What If Plot Involves a Virus?
OOWolf
Savannah
I've been curious for a while, to ask others on this blog, about the potential of the film involving a virus. Do you think after all of this uncertainty and uneasiness, people might be put off by this being a potential part of the plot? Seems the way the future is going, a lot of films have hit close to home, and might disinterest or put off viewers.
^ 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
https://www.mi6community.com/discussion/19099/no-time-to-die-production-thread-minor-spoilers-allowed#latest
And I sure as hell don't want Bond 26 coming in 2024 coming in super-late to try to catch on an old trend.
An interesting idea which could well come to pass. If so that would be the third such disclaimer to appear in front of a Bond film in either cinema or home release. The other two being A View to A Kill and The Living Daylights.
You may remember this famous disclaimer that appears at the start of A View to A Kill and that was retained on home releases of the film on VHS, DVD and Blu-ray:
See more details about the reasons behind this disclaimer in the following article:
https://screenrant.com/james-bond-view-kill-zorin-disclaimer-legal-reason/
Lesser known perhaps is the disclaimer that appeared at the start of The Living Daylights and that has I think since been removed in home releases of the film. I believe it used to appear on older VHS releases of the film.
Here are the details of this second Bond film disclaimer from the Wikipedia page on the film:
In the film, Koskov and Whitaker repeatedly use vehicles and drug packets marked with the Red Cross. This action angered a number of Red Cross Societies, which sent letters of protest regarding the film. In addition, the British Red Cross attempted to prosecute the filmmakers and distributors. However, no legal action was taken. As a result, a disclaimer was added at the start of the film and some DVD releases.
[ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Living_Daylights ]
It's been noted elsewhere online that the filmmakers thanked the Red Cross for the use of their vehicles in the end credits so perhaps this also helped to smooth over any legal difficulties with the organisation regarding the use of the Red Cross insignia.
In fact, under UK law such unauthorised use of the Red Cross insignia is proscribed so its use in The Living Daylights could well have ended in a criminal prosecution for the filmmakers. Thankfully of course that didn't happen. See the relevant part of Section 6 of the Geneva Conventions Act 1957:
Prevention of abuse of Red Cross and other emblems
6 Use of Red Cross and other emblems.
(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, it shall not be lawful for any person, without the authority of the Army Council, to use for any purpose whatsoever any of the following emblems or designations, that is to say—
(a) the emblem of a red cross with vertical and horizontal arms of the same length on, and completely surrounded by, a white ground, or the designation “Red Cross" or “Geneva Cross"
See also subsection (3) which states:
(3) If any person contravenes the foregoing provisions of this section he shall be guilty of an offence and be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding [level 3 on the standard scale] and to forfeit any goods upon or in connection with which the emblem, designation, design or wording was used.
[ https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Eliz2/5-6/52/crossheading/prevention-of-abuse-of-red-cross-and-other-emblems/1991-02-01#commentary-c966014 ]
Yes, there is indeed. One of the reasons I know a fair bit about this area is because I've been researching it on and off for an article. It's fascinating stuff.
No, you can't indeed. You evidently mess with them at your peril, especially since they have the force of UK statute law behind them! One can understand why the Red Cross was upset at the unauthorised inclusion of the Red Cross emblem in The Living Daylights and especially how their organisation was used as a cover by the villains. However, as we know, Bond villains and real world villains often conduct their nefarious deeds under the cover of an organisation that strives to do good to those most in need around the world. Of course the Red Cross were quite within their rights to defend the misuse of their symbols but I know the producers weren't setting out to upset them and it was just an unfortinate oversight on their part. I don't think it was something they could have reasonably foreseen. Thankfully the issue was resolved amicably via the disclaimer and without recourse to legal action.
Ooh yes, good point: the Olympics guys are another one who defend their mark extremely actively.
To be honest I myself only found out about the TLD Red Cross disclaimer in recent years after I did some more in-depth research into the AVTAK disclaimer which I'd of course known about for years. The reason for this lack of knowledge about the TLD disclaimer is easy enough to discern. It's simply because unlike the AVTAK one the TLD disclaimer was removed from later releases of the film to the home market. I was only little when the film was released in cinemas so never got the chance to see the disclaimer at the time.
You're no doubt right about seeing the disclaimer on TV years ago. I believe that it was included on the older prints of the film. Perhaps the agreement with the Red Cross on the disclaimer had some sort of sunset clause that it would precede the film for only so many years. Perhaps that explanation is too complex and it was simply felt it was alright to omit it from home releases after a certain point by the distributors of the VHS or DVDs. I know that it was at one point included on some older VHS releases of the film. In fact when I researched this subject a few years ago I'm pretty sure that a picture of the TLD disclaimer screen message was available online. Unfortunately, I can't seem to find it now to share with you all here in this thread.
Yes, it's understandable given what I've written above that the TLD disclaimer is much less well known than the AVTAK one. It's my pleasure to share some information about it and the AVTAK disclaimer. Glad you found it interesting too, @goldenswissroyale.
That's a very good point, @RichardTheBruce and something I also missed along with those two prestigious organisations! :)
In OHMSS the Red Cross was depicted in a positive light I guess.
Yes, that's what it ultimately most comes down to. If there are negative associations with the symbols being used in the Bond films then that's a different story of course, as we have seen.
Yes, well that's true about the Red Cross one. As you say, perhaps they weren't as ready to protect their insignia as they were some 18 years later with TLD. Perhaps the fact that the militia was ultimately on the side of the Angels and not the villains had something to do with it though. Thereby, the filmmakers were given the benefit of the doubt and a free pass on that one.
They're purely humanitarian and non-partisan, I doubt they'd want to be associated with a commando raid, and the whole point of them is that they don't deal with who's good or who's bad :)
Glock does things differently: every exposure is good exposure for them, so they are happy to see their guns featured in movies, whether they are used by heroes or badguys.
Back on topic: if the plot involves the release of a virus, I think it will show NTTD as being borderline prophetic and thus very relevant.
It might have felt like an old plot before the pandemic. Not anymore.
from a weaponised virus. Odd to think that only a few years later, we'd be in Lockdown
as a country for real.
Do we know it's a Spectre meeting/ball for certain?