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
And in the meanwhile the crisis in East-Ukraine keeps triggering old Cold War sentiments. Today, a "permanent" cease fire was established between Kiev and the pro-Russian separatists. Allthough, pro-Russian forces are still fighting for the costal port Mariupol, to force a direct "bridge" between De Krim, so it has more direct borders with Russia.
For the "classical" West the current cease fire is welcomed, but with much scepticism. The scepticism is logical and it fuelled today new severe sanctions from EU-side. It's quite remarkable how the usually divided European Union agrees more often on political issues that normally wouldn't happen that fast.
Also the US, Australia and Canada have issues as a result more sanctions. So what do we say about that? Can we now say that we have a "Cold War 2.0" on our hands?
And how can we turn these current political developments into inspiration for Bond 24...or Bond 25? Any ideas?
Just hope it doesn't get hot...
But now a more radical change is possible. Last weekend's edition of the Sunday Times had a new poll on the issue of Scottish Independence. Apparently, the undecideds are now swinging towards a "Yes"-vote. On September 18th the poll takes place. But if it was held today, 51% of all Shots will vote for independence, resulting in athe end of more than 300 years "personal union" with England...and Wales. Basically, Europe will get another new country.
Should there be a mention of these events in Bond 24? A small reference? We know from "Skyfall" that Bond is a true supporter of the Union Jack. So what should happen now?
Politics for me is very important. It made gay marriage possible. I am gay. And thanks to politics....I can be more free :-). So, I've said it in a very simplistic albeit true way.
I think we need to take better care of our western politics. Otherwise it can turn, over a course of several decades, into the politics that Putin made big.
Politics gives you a better understanding and insight on how change can work. And how progressive change and positive thinking compares to conservatism and fear.
Kind of like, at the very end of Beneath The Planet Of The Apes...
;)
:\">
Agreed, but sometimes it's nice to have a refuge from reality. Bond is about escapism, not realistic geopolitics. The way the Cold War was portrayed in Bond films was laughable and bore little connection with the real world.
Any way, there are two threads on Scottish independence already. And it looks like they'll vote no any way.
Because of 'current geopolitical developments' there's a lot of suffering going on right now. I think it's kinda crude to use the situation these people are affected by as the story for some Hollywood blockbuster.
Then perhaps we should have demonstrated against the London terrorist attacks in 'Skyfall'. The explosion inside the Vauxhall Cross MI6-building, the shooting at Westminster Parliamentary Committee Room and the derailing of a metro. It's, sadly, very comparable to other real-life terrorist attacks in London (2005).
I think the similarity to 'real' events is unfortunate and detracts from the escapist entertainment value. But I'm not a fan of SF any way, so I would say that.
I prefer Bond to operate in his own escapist world, with real world events operating only as back drop. The '60s films laid down this template perfectly, and for the most part, succeeding films right through to CR, have stuck with the original tone, remaining above the brutal real world fray.
Mind you real world events, will always serve as at least a backdrop. Even the '60s films were very aware of the public's real concerns at the time, of imminent nuclear world war, but Spectre was cast as the main villain, not Soviet Russia. In fact the Red Chinese were cast as convenient supervillain nuclear collaborators in both GF and YOLT, possibly to not spook moviegoers about real world Soviet designs. The real world Chinese threat was more benign.
FRWL took pains to cast Spectre as villain rather than Flemings Soviet Smersh plotting.
I guess the trick is to maintain an escapist fantasy vibe, with the Spectre types portrayed as the real serious threats to humanity, with real world forces only manipulated in the broader supervillain schemes.
Or if Wales finally gets a part in a possible new Union Jack:
So what would James Bond actually think of all this?
:-).
You'll still be able to keep the British end up. \m/
Oooops, I mean" Islamist" State.
Admitedly, that approach could all go badly wrong. ..
Putin's words sound like stuff you would have heard in the Cold War. NATO members need to respond to this in a direct manner not dismiss this as a bluff.
Pro Russian militants were supplied by huge BUK missile installations. These rockets killed hundreds of my fellow Dutch countrymen. And all Putin does is complaining about the Dutch research process, in trying to find the people who shot down mh17. That same Putin did not have the normal enlightened guts to sign the condolences register in the Dutch embassy in Moscow.
For me, guys like Putin are dangerous creatures. Suddenly a megalomane villain like General Orlov looks even more realistic.
What would you think the theme of Bond 24 could be?
Wouldn't it have been even more hypocritical and offensive if he had signed the book of condolensces?
Personally speaking I am not that bothered. I prefer for the effort to go into a well constructed plot. SF for me focuses on themes at the expense of the basic plot and storyline. Now, if a film is both rich in terms of plot and themes, that's great, but generally the story must take priority.
Mirroring today's politics is definitely not what Bond is about. It's escapist fantasy.
That's a bit black-and-white no? I'd say it's a combination of escapism meets today's politics.
I do remember this quote from Marc Forster though:
"Because Bond plays it real, I thought the political circumstances should be real too, even though Bond shouldn't be a political film. I thought the more political I make it, the more real it feels, not just with Bolivia and what's happening in Haiti, but with all these corporations like Shell and Chevron saying they're green because it's so fashionable to be green. During the Cold War, everything was very clear, the good guys and the bad guys. Today there's much overlapping of good and bad. It isn't as morally distinct, because we all have both elements in us."
—Marc Forster on the political landscape of the film. On top of that, I think both Martin Campbell and especially Sam Mendes have injected quite a bit of politics in Daniel Craig's films.