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
Exactly. It adds to TLD's time capsule quality reflecting what was then happening in the world of 1987 espionage and international intrigue.
Same here. I've never really connected the Mujahideen with Al Qaeda. To me, it's more of a coincidence than anything else.
TLD was released 14 years before 9/11. In the historical context, the US, UK and others were supporting bin Laden against the Soviets in 1987. Look at it from the historical context of 1987 and try not to connect dots that aren't there.
A terrorist group could mimick anything from any action film really if they so decide? You could then argue that well perhaps Bond should not ally himself with whoever incase 10 years down the line they completely change their stance on something? Due to change of goverments?
Same with the action sequences? Would it be a case of "We cannot do that because of copycats?" Nothing would ever get made like horror movies......etc.
Absolutely agree. The film turns way too political at the end. The filmmakers seem to have forgotten the quote about Afghanistan being the "graveyard of empires."
What was brilliant about making Spectre the villain in the early films was that, although at times it seemed like the West vs. the Russians, it never really was. And consequently, those films seem less dated even though they are a lot older than TLD.
A funny anachronism is Kananga's line in LALD about him and the phone company being a "monopoly for years to come." He couldn't have foreseen that the U.S. would break up the phone monopoly.
The Living Daylights should be seen in the context of the Cold War and far from representing historical facts however it shows one particularly important: the early support of the Western powers to the enemys of Communism that later changes to actions against them. Afhganistan it's an example, but also is Dominican Republic under Trujillo and Panama ruled by Noriega.
"...when one's young, it seems very easy to distinguish beween right and wrong, but as one gets older it becomes more difficult." (CR, p.158).
Amen to that, sir! :)
Moving on,
<font color=tomato size=4><b>THESIS 020</b></font>
<font color=blue size=7> <b>The killing, free love making and sometimes physical violence in the Bonds should not prevent -10 yr boys from watching them at will.</b></font>
But the thing with movie ratings these days is they're getting away with more at lower ratings. I seem to remember there being a whole hoohah over the dark knight when it got a 12A rating in the UK.
Don't you agree then, Major? ;-)
It's okay, DC. We can talk about it. We're all in this together. Admitting you have a problem is the first step towards salvation. Only... I don't think I want to get rid of it just yet. ;-)
I like to spend time with mine and find that she is generaly interested in some stuff but when two folks kiss she is mostly disgusted. When it comes to violence they are into fairytail violence, when it isn't real then it is fine (Harry Potter and such). When we get to a more realistic portrayal of live we find we have a lot of explaining to do.
Considering the amount of sex and violence young people are already exposed to on TV and the internet, I don't think watching a Bond film is going to do a whole lot to influence the corruption of a young child. There's plenty of TV shows that will do more to corrupt a young mind than a Bond film will.