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
I don't know if Blofeld wants to take out the world in a concrete way, i.e. in more than a vague ideal, but he is compared in the novels to Mussolini, Hitler and I may be wrong but I think Napoleon. Leader of men and dictators. S.P.E.C.T.R.E. is a far more modest organization in size than the maffia, the Nazi party or the Pretorian Guard, but Blofeld is no lesser man than the above mentioned people.
But regardind our topic of Rome and your point, I like the connection of Rome, Roman conquerors of old, Mussolini, etc. It just has that undercurrent that fits the return of Blofeld - which again, we don't know how much that comes to fruition in SPECTRE. But Rome is splendid for showing many things, including decadence, corruption, leaders run amok, etc. - so that seems great for a Bond film. Along with the beauty and culture of course.
I don't think Blofeld ever was a would be world ruler, actually. In DN, "world domination" as an aim is a complete assumption from Bond's part and is more metaphorical than a concrete ideal. In YOLT (not that I like the movie), Blofeld is in the payroll of the Chinese. It is only in TSWL'M and MR that the villain wants to truly, literally rule the world... and none of them is Blofeld! Even though Stromberg could be perceived as a thinly disguised/rewritten Blofeld, he still is not Blofeld.
So in both movies and novels, Blofeld's empire is an empire in the shadows, it exists yet it is hidden. His organization deserves its name: it is but a ghost. And to come back to Rome as a setting, well, a place where ruins and a dead empire is still "alive" in people's mind and in its cultural influence and architecture is a perfect setting to illustrate the nature of the menace S.P.E.C.T.R.E. represents.
Yes, but it is not world domination, not concretely. When one says "Bond saves the world", it usually means he saves it from a catastrophe that would hurt the free world on the long turn and change it forever. There are plenty of plots where he does prevent such catastrophe of epic proportions to happen: the destruction of Western economy in GF, the annihilation of Miami in TB, the destruction of the world's livestock in OHMSS, etc.
I agree with @Birdleson on this. SPECTRE should be a thread every nation on the planet fears.
On Rome, well, it's a beautiful, though congested city with history at every corner. Which is nice.
I must say I really love the publicity shots they made, and I think Belluci and Craig have a lot of chemistry together, which I hope works wonders on the screen. I can't help but slowly get excited about the film. It just all feels right.
Yeah that would kick ass. Mendes seems to be on the right track with this merging of the "old and the new" (bringing a classic Bond for the modern age etc).
Perhaps nobody does do it better than Monica ... I just know I am thrilled she is in this Bond film. So overdue.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/event/article-2960446/Monica-Bellucci-seducing-Bond-50.html
I think Hoyte van Hoytema will make Rome look good. I also regret that Roger Deakins won't be there to make Rome look even better. But I can't wait to see what kind of stuff they're going to pull off there. I want Rome by day and by night, and I want to stay there a good portion of the film. Not like how Bregenz was wasted on two amazing shots and then nothing but interior filming in QOS. The Bond travelogue can still serve a purpose, even in these Internet influenced times. I can always see Rome in pictures. I can always go back there - it's been 15 years! But I want to experience Rome through the eyes of Bond.
You haven't seen Europe if you haven't seen Rome. So thank you, Spectre.
Could not agree more DD! I visited Rome and took in the sights a number of years ago. Stunning and amazing city!
Regarding Rome as a location for a Bond film, I’d like to confirm my own suspicion of the point @DarthDimi raises here: I think the Bond producers have shied away from Rome before now because of its status as the world center of Catholicism. Not too surprising, really…the world of Bond is a fantasy world to a large extent, and the Bond films have a tenuous relationship to espionage as it is practiced in reality. Religion is the third rail of popular culture, you touch it at your peril. Why risk alienating a good part of your proposed customer base by giving your villains a motivation based on their religious faith (misapplied though it might be) when it’s so much easier to just make up a mad scientist or an eeevil organization with a loosely defined agenda and a bunch of periods in its name? @Thunderfinger's point is also well taken in this regard. Craig’s tenure as Bond has been surprising in that the film makers have been far bolder in attempting to grapple with real world concerns than has been the case for any previous Bond…think of Le Chiffre as banker for terrorists of all types and nationalities, or Quantum’s all too real ploy of owning the water supply of Bolivia in order to further enrich a shadowy consortium of well placed, already obscenely wealthy individuals. The subtle use of Christian symbolism in Skyfall made it clear to those of us with an eye for hidden meanings: this director and actor are willing to engage a topic that had earlier been taboo for the Bond series. I will not be at all surprised if Rome’s history as a spiritual center…and the potential that entails for the political manipulation of vast numbers of people…is at play somewhere in the storyline of this movie, if only in a symbolic fashion.
For me, this topic brings to mind a question that had only vaguely been a possibility back when Sean Connery was routinely battling the minions of SPECTRE…what sort of Terrorism can we expect to see from this new iteration of the Special Executive for etc. etc.? In the sixties and seventies, when SPECTRE held full sway as Bond’s perpetual nemesis, the western world had not really experienced terrorism as more than a theoretical possibility, so the notion that someone could steal a couple of nuclear bombs and use them to hold entire nations at hostage, was an easily dismissable fantasy. Today it is an entirely legitimate concern. So: what sort of ties to real world terrorism can we expect of the modern SPECTRE? Is our new Blofeld going to acknowledge the jihadist movement at all, if only to dismiss it as another tool for manipulating the fools of the world? Will the “Terrorism” inherent in SPECTRE’s very name be largely ignored? Every signal that we have received from the powers that be on this film leads us to believe that the intent here is to make a grand, fun, escapist Bond film in the classic sense. As much as we all are looking for that sort of great adventure…would that sort of presentation be treating the subject with the serious regard that it truly deserves? I don’t have an answer here, which is why I’m asking the question. I DO have faith in Mendes, Craig, et al. to bring us satisfying responses to the questions at hand. Without resorting to script spoilers, does anyone out there have any responses of their own to the issues I‘ve noted here?
How will SPECTRE be presented as evil? I sincerely doubt the filmmakers would have Bond's foes use the same kind of terrorism that we are seeing in our real world now, not the exact same thing making such awful tragic headlines. Except, as you mention, maybe in passing to dismiss it somehow. But SPECTRE has to be a real threat, a deeply dark menace in order for it to carry enough weight to make the conflict, suspense, and tension build enough to be a compelling part of this story. Bond going against them has to be a huge deal, nothing lightweight about it. I think even though this is being served up (so far anyway) as a big, adventurous, splendid, and more fun Bond film (which I am all for, believe me), the threat has to be strong enough. I am guessing that SPECTRE may be more of the behind the scenes, "they are everywhere" manipulators of governments, of big businesses around the world - far deeper and more widely entrenched than MI6 had ever thought possible. And who are they? Is it a "they"? Is it a family? Or one individual?
Interesting to speculate on. And Rome is a very fitting backdrop for things to start percolating with SPECTRE. Look at its history.
I'm very happy with what I am seeing develop with this film so far. I'd love to hear from others about the SPECTRE speculation.
Which makes the next step so much more interesting. the question is though... what is that next step? Perhaps that's why I thought the ending of 'Kingsman, the secret service' not that good, or well executed. The producers probably thought of it as a joke, whereas I thought it possible enough to not make it funny. Remember anthrax?
But then again, annihialtion of the world has been doen before as well. So what IS the next step? But perhaps that is a bit too far fetched. Bond, in the novels at least, protects the west not from annihilation but from disaster. Sure, MR and TSWLM go further, and perhaps just that bit too far.
Anyway, I'm curious to see what the've come up with and frankly, I'm hopefull enough.
I am well aware that this thread has been languishing for a couple of weeks, but please understand that is totally unintentional on my part. I apologize. I am completely dry, running on empty, to think of our next topic to discuss.
Therefore, I am opening this up today for suggestions from you.
What would be a good topic? I'd love to find something to look at throughout the Bond films, something fun where we could compare the films and dissect them a bit. Last year we finished our second look at each Bond film, as far as reviewing them went, with discussion questions. We have also looked at soundtracks, music, villains, stunts, directors, actors/actresses, screenwriters, humor, and more ... all within the past year. So please help me out.
Rather than beat myself up daily for being remiss and simply out of ideas, please join me with your suggestions and thoughts for discussion. What would you like to chat about? What would you like to critique/examine in the Bond films?
The best I can come up with right now is Bond Transportation thru all of the films - the Aston Martin, BMW, Landrovers, hovercraft, the jetpack, a nimble Mustang, etc. (even the awful Bondola could figure in).
Please let me hear from you! :) What do you feel like diving into and discussing? Could be a short one week topic or something we could look at in all of the films. Thank you!
Cheers! :-bd
I don't think I'm comfortable opening it up to other actors (besides Bonds) playing Bond. Unless a bunch of you really want that.
But that is a start - thanks, both of you! :)
I'm going to say let's leave out Peter Sellars, David Niven, and Barry Nelson. And I prefer not to include NSNA either. But the rest of the regular EON Bond film series, yes.
I'm going to call this: Switching Bonds :-O :-?
As @BeatlesSansEarmuffs has given us some good examples ( I love the "eyesh cream"!!), you can see that we can have some fun with this, as well as a more serious thought. Putting Dalton in Goldeneye, as just one example, is not really for amusement - many people would have liked that and you can take a moment to illustrate how that would have played out, if you use that "switch".
Keep in mind, this means no changes in the script or other actors. It is tempting to change many things ... but this round is not about "our own edit" and "improving" a Bond film by changing the script or other cast. Just put a different Bond in the role and see what a difference that might make. :)
NOTE: You can put in a different Bond AND you may also put the Bond now replaced into a different Bond film (of the actor that just jumped in) - but that is optional. Like this: Connery put into FYEO, then Moore goes somewhere else in Connery's world (Thunderball, for example)
But that bit is optional; if you just want to illustrate Connery in FYEO and let it go at that (do give us a scene or two to illustrate how that would look) and not put Moore in a Connery film, that is okay, too.
So let's change or switch the Bonds for about a week, perhaps a little longer.
My first go at this is: Lazenby in DAF
Laz's Bond, driven into a fractured psychological state due to the horrendously shocking, heartbreaking murder of his wife, tries to move on by all the strange, unique, and wacky elements that DAF has to offer, such as: that brutal elevator fight (oh, Laz's Bond would lap that up!), a blonde/brunette/redhead Tiffany to distract him (just what he needs because nobody could replace Tracy), the dazzling and totally dizzy, surreal world that is Vegas, and the chance to squash those slimy evil menaces, Kidd and Wint - Laz's Bond would definitely enjoy that, as well as the watery romp with Bambi and Thumper (though they would have a much harder time with Laz's Bond!). DAF with Lazenby would almost seem like a cathartic, weird, nearly acceptable story then. I think it would be quite interesting!
As for putting Connery into OHMSS = sublime. I actually seriously would have greatly preferred that. I think Connery - with those actors, director, and that heartbreaking heart of Bond story - would have risen to the occasion and made it a complete masterpiece. So yes, to that, too!
*******
That was fun! Who's next? Change or switch your Bonds!
I'm going to say let's leave out Peter Sellars, David Niven, and Barry Nelson. And I prefer not to include NSNA either. But the rest of the regular EON Bond film series, yes.
I'm going to call this: Switching Bonds :-O :-?
As @BeatlesSansEarmuffs has given us some good examples ( I love the "eyesh cream"!!), you can see that we can have some fun with this, as well as a more serious thought. Putting Dalton in Goldeneye, as just one example, is not really for amusement - many people would have liked that and you can take a moment to illustrate how that would have played out, if you use that "switch".
Keep in mind, this means no changes in the script or other actors. It is tempting to change many things ... but this round is not about "our own edit" and "improving" a Bond film by changing the script or other cast. Just put a different Bond in the role and see what a difference that might make. :)
NOTE: You can put in a different Bond AND you may also put the Bond now replaced into a different Bond film (of the actor that just jumped in) - but that is optional. Like this: Connery put into FYEO, then Moore goes somewhere else in Connery's world (Thunderball, for example)
But that bit is optional; if you just want to illustrate Connery in FYEO and let it go at that (do give us a scene or two to illustrate how that would look) and not put Moore in a Connery film, that is okay, too.
So let's change or switch the Bonds for about a week, perhaps a little longer.
My first go at this is: Lazenby in DAF
Laz's Bond, driven into a fractured psychological state due to the horrendously shocking, heartbreaking murder of his wife, tries to move on by embracing all of the strange, unique, and wacky elements that DAF has to offer, such as: that brutal elevator fight (oh, Laz's Bond would lap that up!), a blonde/brunette/redhead Tiffany to distract him (just what he needs because nobody could replace Tracy), the dazzling and totally dizzy, surreal world that is Vegas, and the chance to squash those slimy evil menaces, Kidd and Wint - Laz's Bond would definitely enjoy that, as well as the watery romp with Bambi and Thumper (though they would have a much harder time with Laz's Bond!). DAF with Lazenby would almost seem like a cathartic, weird, nearly acceptable story then. I think it would be quite interesting!
As for putting Connery into OHMSS = sublime. I actually seriously would have greatly preferred that. I think Connery - with those actors, director, and that heartbreaking turning point of Bond's story - would have risen to the occasion and made it a complete masterpiece. So yes, to that, too!
*******
That was fun! Who's next? Change or switch your Bonds! :-bd