Home › Bond Movies › SPECTRE
Reporting For Duty
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Categories
Current geopolitical developments create even better source/plot material for future Bond films
Back in "Skyfall", the late female 'M' said: "Today I've repeatedly heard how irrelevant my department has become. "Why do we need agents, the Double-0 section? Isn't it all antiquated?" Well, I suppose I see a different world than you do, and the truth is that what I see frightens me. I'm frightened because our enemies are no longer known to us. They do not exist on a map. They're not nations, they're individuals. And look around you. Who do you fear? Can you see a face, a uniform, a flag? No! Our world is not more transparent now, it's more opaque! It's in the shadows. That's where we must do battle. So before you declare us irrelevant, ask yourselves, how safe do you feel?"
"Skyfall" was produced in 2011/2012. And look where we stand now two years after "Skyfall". The world is indeed more opaque, more complicated, when it comes down to geopolitical developments. Perhaps the only difference is, that we do link enemies -like certain narcistic, populist, autocratic presidents on this planet- to certain nations. We actually have started some of the old Cold War retorical inuendo again. And Russia has become in just one year time a "villainous nation" for many people in the classical West.
Russia. Who would have guessed that a president like Putin is turning mother Russia from a silent capitalist, semi-democratic, post-Soviet-nation into a full-blown Soviet-like dictatorship?
I think this offers plentiful material for future Bond film plots. The current geopolitical developments are a bit scary, but it could prove valuable and exciting source material for agent 007.
As 'M' said in 2012: "I'm frightened because our enemies are no longer known to us. They do not exist on a map. They're not nations, they're individuals."
I think it's time for a realistic Bond villain who likes to heat up tensions between the West and Russia again. Call him Blofeld, or SPECTRE's Nr.1. Not because it's cheesy or old-fashioned. But because we really live in such times again. The Pierce Brosnan-cheese is over. "Funny" sex scandals, a near "perfect" 1990's economy, its prosperity, welfare and lack of real conflicts are over. Welcome "Cold War 2.0". A Cold War with a difference. A smarter, sneekier "war", in which espionage will be thriving again.
What kind of geopolitical developments would you like to see in the upcoming 24th James Bond film? Please let us know :-).
"Skyfall" was produced in 2011/2012. And look where we stand now two years after "Skyfall". The world is indeed more opaque, more complicated, when it comes down to geopolitical developments. Perhaps the only difference is, that we do link enemies -like certain narcistic, populist, autocratic presidents on this planet- to certain nations. We actually have started some of the old Cold War retorical inuendo again. And Russia has become in just one year time a "villainous nation" for many people in the classical West.
Russia. Who would have guessed that a president like Putin is turning mother Russia from a silent capitalist, semi-democratic, post-Soviet-nation into a full-blown Soviet-like dictatorship?
I think this offers plentiful material for future Bond film plots. The current geopolitical developments are a bit scary, but it could prove valuable and exciting source material for agent 007.
As 'M' said in 2012: "I'm frightened because our enemies are no longer known to us. They do not exist on a map. They're not nations, they're individuals."
I think it's time for a realistic Bond villain who likes to heat up tensions between the West and Russia again. Call him Blofeld, or SPECTRE's Nr.1. Not because it's cheesy or old-fashioned. But because we really live in such times again. The Pierce Brosnan-cheese is over. "Funny" sex scandals, a near "perfect" 1990's economy, its prosperity, welfare and lack of real conflicts are over. Welcome "Cold War 2.0". A Cold War with a difference. A smarter, sneekier "war", in which espionage will be thriving again.
What kind of geopolitical developments would you like to see in the upcoming 24th James Bond film? Please let us know :-).
^ 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
Or, as Brosnan's Bond said in GE 'governments change, lies stay the same'
Who you talking about here?
"...like certain narcistic, populist, autocratic presidents on this planet- to certain nations."
Obama or Putin? I wonder because I don't equate populist with Putin, but populist does, or at least it did resonate with Obama at one point. And a case for both narcissistic and autocratic can be made for Obama.
Don't want to be a warmonger. But this ISIS scourge needs to be confronted head-on.
Keep up the air strikes and send in the troops and heavy weaponry.
Weapons of war does seem to be the answer as they themselves are waging war. And IMO the only way to fight a war is all out. ie fight to win and destroy your enemy, otherwise things drag out and more people die.
And this time if the USA does fully engage again and launch an all-out military effort, once the objective has been achieved, the enemy destroyed or at least scattered, then this time, the USA should remain indefinitely as an occupying force. Democray may be futile, given the region's culture and history, but the USA/Nato could remain until such time as Iraq was able to build up its own military and economy and remain as a US protectorate.
IMO the West needs Iraq as an ally in this very volatile region.
If Warren Murphy and Jim Mullaney were still writing Destroyer novels, Harold Smith and Cure would be sending Remo and Chiun in to take down and destroy ISIS singlehandedly. Remo might even go Shiva on them.
Remo's wreaked plenty of havoc in the region before and House of Sinanju does strike fear amongst the area's despots and rulers.
So yes, with Remo parked for the time being, Bond, although nowhere near as lethal ( there is only one House of Sinanju) could be counted on maybe to deal these death dealers some of their own medicine. Blow lots of stuff up and take out some of the nastier leaders.
Yes please do work such into the next movie plot. If Bond does a good job, I might even become a serious Craig fan.
Islamic State/ISIS, all kinds of retribution, the stoning to death of women, a young boy holding up a severed head, the bloody dispute between Russia and the Ukraine, China and Japan escalating their dispute over islands, etc. - it is all material for a writer.
Sad to say, things escalate quickly around the world. And these days we definitely have the media saturation (and penetration) to hear about atrocities quickly and in detail.
Everything that happens in the world around one is grist for the writer's mill ... political as well as personal. A good writer will produce a good story from the same material a mediocre writer uses to produce a mediocre story. The only real question is: what sort of story would best serve the needs of today's audience? One that pits Bond against real world foes, or one that is more escapist in nature? As much as some might like to see Bond destroy the likes of ISIS at the earliest possible moment, my own suspicion is that the time is right for some escapist fare right about now.
As for Bond, I much prefer the edgy escapist fare that we got the in the '60s and even the '70s notwithstanding the Rog lighter touch.
Bond battling Spectre with girls galore is best! A modern day Blofeld could even mock the ISIS rabble -dismiss them as common thugs. Bond might even briefly engage the ISIS barbarians, but the real threat would be whatever world domination scheme that Spectre and the madman Blofeld was cooking up.
We need some exciting escapist nonsense fare but still with the violent Connery edge. But no fear there. Craig is every bit as convincing as Connery was when it comes to violence. He just needs to evolve the Connery swagger.
Thanks in good measure to the Austin Powers films, which are indelibly printed in many peoples' minds and the awfulness known as DAD. And also simply because Roger Moore could handle over the top humor better than any other Bond actor (better than most actors, period) - it suited him like a glove. I think we should not go strongly into that area again. Possibly ever.
The humor needs balance. It is tricky. But I definitely want to see Bond enjoying himself more again in Bond 24.
As for world situations - bombs of any kind will always be a good thing for a Bond film, if suspensefully done and not just for explosions. Terrorists ... I am unsure. I prefer one evil, slimy master villain. A villain with an all invasive network or just one strong group to do his bidding. I don't think that I want today's current headlines regarding terrorist groups or specific wars as a direct reference in the next few Bond films. But that is just my feelings at this time. A well written story bringing in Quantum would be welcomed by me. But not completely necessary. I do want a strong, memorable, and truly despicable villain (male or female). I do not think I want a direct reference to current world events as far as specific factions go.
What works I think is a grounded dangerous actor like Connery or even Craig, who offsets the mad schemes and set pieces, with a relaxed but deadly serious, dangerous presence. Trick is for the Bond actor, to never let on that its all really escapist nonsense, and play it straight. Play up the danger and suspense. Craig could do this as well as either Connery or Laz, but his films have all been heavy on character drama and less about the suave but deadly, double 00 agent known as James Bond, simply being on mission, battling crazy outlandish world domination schemes, masterminded by supervillains, in worlds populated by exotic women and locations, eccentric henchmen and allies.
This is what the Bondmania '60s films did so well. They combined high camp with real danger and suspense. But you need an actor like Connery to really pull it altogether and make the fantasy believable and dangerous. Lazenby was adequate IMO. He played it straight like Connery. Moore and Broz not so much. Neither were convincing enough IMO as dangerous dudes. Dalton, again IMO, was a little too intense at times, although he might have relaxed in time.
Craig does have Connery potential. He's just got to actually want to do a great escapist Bond adventure, minus Bond having personal issues.
Slipping some ISIS or real world elements into the fantasy mix is easily done.
And I agree with @4EverBonded, I hope they don't make things so heavy-handed. Something lighter doesn't necessarily mean a Bond film of lesser quality. :)
It's how you look at things really. Look to "Thunderball". SPECTRE was hijacking two atomic bombs. Allthough that mere plot looked cheesy to many people, one can ask him-/herself what would happen if SPECTRE really detonated a bomb on a big city in the USA.
Allthough SPECTRE itself was designed in such a way (production design, Blofeld stroking cat) that the organization looked like some kind of gay counterpart of the Bilderberg Conference, nowadays Hamas is bombing Israel. Just to name an example. Or what about using an airplane as a "bomb", LIKE 9/11?
Fact is: Current geopolitical developments can be translated in such a way that we get a Thunderball-esque approach. That is: A bit more larger-than-life setting of a criminal terrorist organization, of which its plans are at the same time still realistical enough to happen in the real world.
Except, the Geo bit of it. They had no nation.
And the politics bit - they were in it for the money.
But apart from that...
;)
The state of the world can be acknowledged in a Bond film, but I don't think it should do anything more than help create an informed backdrop for the narrative to stand out from.
The challenge as I see it is to create a well-rounded villain with a veneer of plausibility that wasn't necessary pre-Craig. The cartoon elements of Bond are now heavily underplayed so we now have characters approaching the three-dimensional, with understandable, if indefensible, motivation.
That said though, the story itself can (and I would say should) be much larger than life - even tending-to-the-ludicrous plots can work so long as they're just plausible enough to accommodate the (slightly) more realistic characters and dialogue that we need now.
So I offer you a first act of terrorist-busting action in your choice of war-torn territories globally. A second act where we discover that there's a super-rich megalomaniac with a disability who's been exploiting said terrorists to his own nefarious and cataclysmic end. And finally a third act where Bond thwarts with prejudice, no doubt assisted by one of the lady terrorists he decided not to thwart in act 1 and who has now seen the light.
Le Chiffon. Isn't he a nefarious drag act?
This is ridiculous on so many levels ( speaking strictly as a non Fan of Mr Assange)!
Indeed Lúdico. And there's nothing wrong with that I think. I was watching 'octopussy' the other day. Did you hear what that crazy Soviet general Orlov said to the members of the Politburo? "The West is decadent. And divided!!" 1983 was certainly another, albeit the last height, of an intensified Cold War. There was even a guy in that scene who obviously looked like Brenznjev.
And the funny thing is, after watching that map at which Orlov was pointing, that I couldn't stop thinking that this little mad general Orlov actually reminded me of.....Putin :-o
I never thoug
I never thought it couldn't be written into the script in a not-so-obvious way though, but I think there's ethical problems.
What kind of ethical problems if I may ask? I'm really curious about that. It's one of the reasons why certain funeral scenes in 'Skyfall' were deleted.